Law School Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Dok-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Maumbaum, Attorneys Inducement-do et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 16, 2001

1. The order of the Defendant stated in the attached Form “Corrective Order” against the Plaintiff on January 8, 2000 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

As set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by the whole purport of the statement in Gap evidence 1-2 and the whole purport of the pleading:

A. The plaintiff is a stock company that runs a par value food business and is a business operator under Article 2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

B. The plaintiff's act

(1) During the period from September 1, 1998 to September 15, 1998, the Plaintiff held the “unsurger’s 1,50,000 won from the existing 2,00 won to the 1,600 won,” and the “Unsurger’s 3,200 won from the 3,50 won to the 2,500 won from the 3,200 won to the 2,500 won from the franchise agreement holder.”

In relation to the exercise of the franchise agreement, the Plaintiff unilaterally determined and implemented whether to participate in the exercise of the franchise agreement holder, the scope of the product discount amount, and the subject of the burden of the discounted cost, etc. in advance or with no consent from the franchise agreement holder (hereinafter

(2) According to Article 6 of the franchise agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the franchise agreement party, the franchise agreement is an agreement that allows the Plaintiff to handle the goods supplied or designated by the Plaintiff and that no other goods shall be purchased or sold. According to such franchise agreement, the Plaintiff has supplied the franchise agreement operator with the goods required for the franchise business (hereinafter referred to as “second act”).

본문내 포함된 표 구분 개수 품목 원고가 공급하는 품목 1) 원고가 사양을정해 주문생산하는 품목 103개 번스, 레몬파이, 새우패티, 비프패티, 냉동포테이토, 빙수용 찰떡, 화이어윙, 아이스커피, 치킨 패티 등 일반공산품 2) 21개 탄산시럽(사이다, 콜라), 후르츠칵테일, 밀감, 천연체리, 연유, 오랜지, 빙수용찰떡, 모카시럽, 케찹팩, 피클, 그라뉴당, 마스터드, 슈가팩, 카넬콘, 주방용세제, 폴리팩, 청소용페이퍼타올, 후라잉오일,다스타류, k-5, 액상제리 자유구매품목 ？ 레타스(양배추), 양파, 토마토

Notes: 1) The Plaintiff directly supplies the franchise agreement to other manufacturers by purchasing from other manufacturers, or the supply to other manufacturers designated by the Plaintiff, and the settlement of expenses is made through the Plaintiff.

(ii) an article, the purchase of which is generally available and of which quality is the same;

(3) According to Articles 15 and 7 of the franchise agreement entered into with the Plaintiff and franchise agreement, when a franchise agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and a franchise agreement, a franchise agreement agreement is made to have the store's main equipment and fixtures installed as the same type of specification and model as the Plaintiff determines, and when opening a new franchise store, the franchise agreement is made to pay 50 million won in cash to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the main equipment and ancillary equipment and to settle the balance at the opening of the store. Under such agreement, the Plaintiff is provided only with 25 stores, such as freezing and cooling the franchise agreement as shown in the following table: (a) the Plaintiff is provided to the suppliers designated by the head office; and (b) the cost settlement is made only through the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “third act”).

본문내 포함된 표 구분 품목 사양에 따를 경우 통일적 이미지 확보에 지장이 없다고 피고가 판단한 품목 원고 공급품목(25개 품목) 1) 냉동고, 냉장고, 콜드 테이블, 번스워머, 덤프스테이션, 워크테이블, 그리들, 번스토스타, 후리이어, 타이머, 후드워머, 쉐이크머신, 소프트머신, 제빙기, 그리들패티캐비넷, 마이크로오븐기, 1인의자, 테이블, 빠의자, 금전등록기, 전산장비(PC), 크로마필림,인테리어공사,간판류 냉동고, 냉장고, 콜드 테이블, 워크테이블, 쉐이크머신, 소프트머신, 제빙기, 그리들패티캐비넷, 후라이 패티 캐비넷 마이크로오븐기, 1인의자, 테이블, 빠의자, 금전등록기, 전산장비(PC), 인테리어공사 등 자유구매품목(6개 품목) 에어콘, 온풍기, 냉난방기, 식기살균건조기,사무실집기, 방송장비 ？

Note: 1) Products that a franchise store may purchase only from an enterprise designated by the Plaintiff.

(4) The plaintiff, as a franchise agreement holder, was in continuous transaction relationship (name omitted) and the representative non-party 1 (name omitted) did not pay raw and secondary materials more than six consecutive times on September 1, 1998 to November 198, and had the representative of neighboring franchise stores collectively sign a proposal containing personal complaints, thereby impairing the plaintiff's reputation. On February 22, 1999, the plaintiff damaged the plaintiff's reputation by causing the disturbance of the whole plan due to personal reasons during the middle of the convention event supervised by the plaintiff, causing disturbance to the whole plan. The defendant was not in use of the ice juice of other products, and the plaintiff's name was kept at the interview with the broadcasting company, and notified the non-party 1 of the termination of the franchise agreement from June 11, 199 to the non-party 19 (hereinafter referred to as "the termination of the franchise agreement").

C. The defendant's disposition

Article 23 (1) 4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 36 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act related to Article 36 (1) of the Act, Article 23 (1) 4 of the Act, Article 23 (1) of the Act, Article 36 (1) 6 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 36 (1) of the Act, Article 6, Article 8, Article 4 of the Act, Article 23 (1) 1 of the Act, Article 36 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, Article 36 (1) of the Act, Article 36 (2) 6 (d), Article 23 (1) 4 of the Act, Article 36 (1) of the Act, Article 36 (1) of the Act, Article 36 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 24 of the Act shall apply to the correction order as well as Article 36 (19 of the Act.

2. Related Acts and subordinate statutes and legal principles on abuse of trade position

The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in the separate sheet. The reason why Article 23 (1) 4 and (2) of the Act and Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide for an act of abuse of trade position of an enterpriser as a type of unfair trade practices in the process of delegation, etc. is to prohibit an enterpriser from abusing his/her position to engage in fair trade in order to ensure the law on equal terms with each other, and to prevent an enterpriser from abusing his/her position to engage in unfair trade in order to ensure fair trade. In order to be subject to regulation of the law, each of the above provisions are to be subject to regulation of the law. In addition to the requirement of each of the above provisions, the act must be unfair in light of the purpose and effect of the above provisions, specific aspects of the act, such as the characteristic and influence of the product, the situation of the transaction, the degree of the enterpriser's superior position in the market, the degree of disadvantage of the other party, etc., and it should be determined that the act is beyond normal practice of 90.7.90.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Concept and economic characteristics of franchise business, and the status of the plaintiff's transaction;

The term "franchise business" is defined as a continuous business relationship in which a franchise business operator allows multiple franchise business operators to engage in certain business activities, such as selling goods, rendering services, etc., using his/her own trademark, trade name, service mark, emblem, etc., by using his/her own trademark, trade name, service mark, emblem, etc., and the franchise agreement is defined as a continuous business relationship in which certain economic benefits are paid in return for the rights and business support granted by the franchise business operator (see Article 2 of the Public Notice).

In the economic aspect of franchise business, franchise business operators can create a nationwide distribution network with small amount of franchising capital, and franchise stores bear personnel expenses, inventory expenses, and franchise store operation expenses, which reduces distribution network maintenance expenses. From the perspective of franchise business operators, a franchise business operator can operate a business with small capital without technical capabilities, know-how and reputation, and management experience under the guidance and support for overall management, and can conduct effective public relations through a franchisor, and reduce operating expenses significantly through a joint purchase, joint logistics, etc., so it is generally understood that a franchise business has interest points that can bring an investment effect within a short period of time (see evidence 41-2, e.g., materials for presentation by the Fair Trade Commission). Unlike the general trading relationship in which both parties conflict with one another, a franchise business operator has special characteristics that it has a common interest in a franchise business (see, e.g., Article 13(1) of the Act).

On the other hand, a franchise business operator shall depend on the Plaintiff as a franchise business operator all the business activities, such as trade name, trademark, packaging, and design, as well as know-how for the production of products. A franchise business operator shall pay a certain amount of franchise fees to the Plaintiff and shall be provided with goods, services, etc., and shall make an investment in the amount equivalent to the store and internal facilities, etc. to participate in a franchise business. In the event that the Plaintiff terminates a franchise agreement, the Plaintiff is in a position that may have a significant economic loss to the franchise

B. Determination as to the first act

(1) The defendant's assertion

A franchise agreement operator is an independent business entity that purchases and sells the Plaintiff’s goods, etc. at his/her own responsibility and charge, and setting the conditions of sale is an important matter between the parties to the transaction, and the Plaintiff must sufficiently consult with the other party to the transaction regarding the enforcement of the relevant discount sales event. In addition, even if the daily average profit of the franchise agreement operator increased compared to the day before the discount sales event, the franchise agreement operator did not participate in the discount sales event, thereby raising more sales profit than the day when the discount sales event is held, thereby offering disadvantages to the other party by unfairly taking advantage of the transaction status.

(2) Determination

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 10-2, and Gap evidence 43, the plaintiff agreed to comply with the "Franchis Operation Rules" enacted by the plaintiff (Article 24). According to the "Franchis Operation Rules" enacted by the plaintiff, the sales promotion activities for lotia products are basically managed, planned, and executed at the headquarters, and the nationwide sales promotion activities are governed by all member cooperatives actively participate in, and there is no exception recognized by the headquarters due to extenuating circumstances. The above sales promotion activities conducted by the plaintiff are limited to non-higher, and the price reduction (20% high price increase is 16.7% high price increase is 16.1% low cost rate, 58.1% high price increase, 16.2% high price increase, and 3% increase in the cost of the above sales promotion activities, but the plaintiff did not bear any loss equivalent to the above sales discount rate of less than 16.3% out of the total cost increase.

In light of the fact that the sales promotion activities are basically executed by the Plaintiff’s franchise headquarters, and the franchise store has already agreed to participate in the nationwide sales promotion events, the purpose of the maintenance and development of the overall franchise business organization, such as the improvement of the image of individual products or franchise business, rather than the promotion of individual business interests, in the case of nationwide sales promotion activities, and in such a case, it would be impossible to hold an event by asking individual franchise stores whether or not daily participation is made, and the gross sales profit is rather increased (no evidence exists to prove that losses such as the sales of individual franchise stores or the decrease of net profit have occurred) in the event of the above discount sales, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff unilaterally performed the sales promotion events, and even if the Plaintiff borne part of the expenses to the franchise store, it is included in the scope of the business control rights held by the franchise trader against the franchise store. It cannot be said that the Plaintiff provided disadvantages to the other party by unfairly taking advantage of the status of the transaction.

The plaintiff's argument on this point is reasonable, and the defendant's argument is groundless.

C. Judgment on the second act

(1) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff’s act of compelling anyone to purchase a general industrial product that can be purchased without restriction from himself/herself or from a person designated by him/her, because it is possible for the Plaintiff to maintain the uniformity necessary for franchise business even if the Plaintiff designates the manufacturing company, product name, etc. for the product, which is a general industrial product, and the franchise agreements freely purchase such product, constitutes an act of compelling anyone to purchase a product that has no intent of purchase by unfairly using his/her trade

(2) Determination

Article 6 of the franchise agreement provides that the franchise store shall purchase the goods designated by the plaintiff or the plaintiff from the plaintiff. In full view of the above facts, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 24, Gap evidence 45-1, Gap evidence 46-1, and 17, and non-party 2's testimony, the plaintiff does not receive a certain percentage of franchise sales according to individual member's sales. The plaintiff shall purchase the goods in bulk, but shall purchase the goods in bulk from the manufacturer not the total or wholesale store, and shall purchase the goods in bulk at a lower price than the total or wholesale store and supply them at a lower price than the market price, and shall individually obtain profits from the standardized quality-management structure of the goods in which the plaintiff can not obtain profits from the standardized quality-management structure of the goods through an analysis of the quality quality-management structure of the goods in Korea without using the standardized quality-management system.

In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s franchise rate from the franchise store under the contract with the franchise store does not receive a separate franchise rate from the franchise store; and (b) instead, under the business structure that provides the Plaintiff with raw and auxiliary fees, a certain amount of profit added to the value of the Plaintiff’s franchise business is substituted for the franchise fee to be paid by the franchise licensee; (c) the Plaintiff’s existence of the Plaintiff’s business is impossible; (d) the Plaintiff’s supply of raw and subsidiary materials is supplied to the franchise store or more; and (e) there is no data to recognize that the Plaintiff’s direct purchase of raw and subsidiary materials is not possible; (e) the Plaintiff’s provision of raw and subsidiary materials to the franchise store or more; and (e) the Plaintiff’s distribution process and distribution period is responsible for the supply of raw and subsidiary materials; and (e) the Plaintiff’s continuous control of the use thereof appears to maintain the unity of the food industry that should maintain the quality and quality of the products across the nation; and (e) the Plaintiff’s intent to compel the Plaintiff to purchase the goods within the scope of the franchise business to be unfairly controlled by using the Plaintiff’s trading status.

The plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, and the defendant's argument is groundless.

D. Determination as to the third act

(1) The defendant's assertion

From among the facilities of a franchise store, freezing, cooling, cooling, call table, tables, ice cream, ice cream, ice string machine, ice string, Hybnet, Micronet, Micronet, 1 himself/herself, tegrhy, tegrhy, book, cash register, computer equipment (PC), and tegrative management work, etc., provide the Plaintiff with a certain amount of specifications or quality standards and allow the Plaintiff to autonomously select a franchise contractor, even though they do not interfere with securing the integrated image of the store, the act of forcing the Plaintiff to purchase the facilities from the supplier designated by the Plaintiff and purchase the facilities from the previous franchise contractor, and forcing the Plaintiff to purchase the facilities without the intent of the other party to purchase the facilities through an unfair use of transaction status.

(2) Determination

The fact that the main equipment and fixtures of a franchise store are installed as the same type and model as the Plaintiff determines. In full view of the entries in Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 45-2, testimony of non-party 3 and the result of on-site verification of party members, it is recognized that some of the store equipment among the store equipment and facilities are installed as the facilities selected by the Plaintiff through prior examination and inspection in order to maintain the quality of products, they are exclusively imported from foreign countries and supplied to the Plaintiff's franchise store in order to maintain the quality of products, and if the product is broken, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to install the order-making equipment and equipment to supply them to the Plaintiff's stores. Since the Plaintiff's order-making equipment and equipment are not the type of the order-making equipment and equipment, it is also necessary for the Plaintiff to install the order-making equipment and equipment to supply them to the Plaintiff's stores, and it is also necessary for the Plaintiff to do so in accordance with the size of the order-making equipment and equipment and the type of the order-making equipment and the installation of the Plaintiff to supply them.

In light of the following facts: (a) the store main equipment, computer equipment, and interior equipment are related to the uniform image, project execution, or product quality of the franchise business; and (b) the above equipment is most supplied at the time of entering into a franchise agreement, and there is a need to supply the facility in a timely manner according to the opening time of the franchise store; (c) it is not reasonable to allow the Plaintiff to supply the facility in a lump sum through the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the franchise agreement; (d) considering the Plaintiff’s revenue structure of the franchise business; and (e) there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff takes unfair profits through the process of supplying the store equipment and thereby, there is no specific loss to individual member stores; and (e) it is an act within the scope necessary to achieve the purpose of the franchise business; and (e) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s act of forcing the Plaintiff to purchase any facility that has no intent to purchase

The plaintiff's argument on this point is reasonable, and the defendant's argument is groundless.

E. Determination on the 4th act

(1) The defendant's assertion

(A) With respect to the overdue payment of the price for the goods, Nonparty 1 paid an amount equivalent to the amount of the price for the goods for three months from September to November 1, 1998, which had been in arrears. There is no overdue payment since November 1998, and there is no justifiable reason to terminate the contract after a considerable period of time from June 1999, when the Plaintiff notified the termination of the contract.

(B) With respect to defamation caused by the inducement of the collective signature of the chain store, Nonparty 1’s recommendation content is a content that the chain store owner can make sufficient recommendations to the Plaintiff. Moreover, it is difficult to view that Nonparty 1’s recommendation content impairs the Plaintiff’s reputation solely on the sole basis of the inducing the neighboring chain store owner to sign

(C) In relation to the event of convention, considering that the time when Nonparty 1 made a statement about the request for the presidential election of the president of the franchise store was the time of the conference, Nonparty 1’s speaking as the representative of the franchise store cannot be deemed as an act that impairs the Plaintiff’s reputation by making a statement about the franchise store as the owner of the franchise store. Moreover, since the Plaintiff did not participate in the convention, the Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the event alone does not have to send a warning to the head of the franchise store, it is not justifiable to deem that the cause of termination of the contract is not legitimate.

(D) Even if it is difficult to confirm whether it is true or not other products juice use, and even if Nonparty 1 brought in and sold juice of other products, it is not reasonable to terminate a franchise agreement during the contract period on the sole ground of the use of the juice of other products, considering the fact that Nonparty 1 did not have been discovered by using other products during that period, that the Plaintiff did not terminate the contract for the same reason, that the Plaintiff’s exclusive supply of juice, etc. was in violation of law, it is not reasonable to terminate the franchise agreement during the contract period on the sole ground of the use of the juice of other products.

(E) In relation to the interview with the broadcasting company, since the fundamental cause of Nonparty 1’s interview with the broadcasting company is due to the Plaintiff’s monopoly supply, the termination of the contract on the ground of the contents of the interview does not constitute justifiable grounds.

(f) The Plaintiff, as well as Nonparty 1, terminated the franchise agreement with the intent to suppress the Plaintiff’s violation of the law, and there was no serious circumstance that makes it difficult to continue the franchise business transaction relationship due to the reasons attributable to Nonparty 1. Accordingly, the Plaintiff committed an act of unfairly refusing the transaction with the franchise agreements during the trading period without justifiable grounds.

(2) Determination

In full view of the evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3-8, evidence No. 4 and 5, evidence No. 6-1, 7-2, evidence No. 8-1, 2-2, evidence No. 1, 11-1, and 24, evidence No. 12-16, evidence No. 12-19, evidence No. 20, evidence No. 21-12, evidence No. 21-2, evidence No. 22, each of the evidence No. 26, and the whole purport of the pleading for verification of video tapes by party members, the following facts are recognized:

(A) On May 8, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 to establish the Plaintiff’s franchise store (name omitted in the name of the store) in the name of Daejeon (detailed omitted) with the contract term until May 7, 2001. Nonparty 1 paid 10 million won of the franchise fee to the Plaintiff, and the above franchise fee cannot be returned in any case.

(B) According to Article 9 of the above franchise agreement, (1) in the event of delay in the payment of the price for three-thirds continuously, or in excess of the amount of claims management established by the headquarters, (2) in the case of non-cooperative conduct under the business policy and operational rules of the headquarters or the act impairing the plaintiff's honor on two or more occasions, and in the case of default, (3) in the case of a violation of Articles 4 (Prohibition of Transfer of Rights) and 6 (1) (the member shop shall handle the goods supplied or designated by the headquarters, and no other goods shall be purchased or sold) of the contract, the plaintiff may terminate the contract immediately.

(C) From September 1998 to November 1998, Nonparty 1 did not pay KRW 30,218,671 for raw and secondary materials supplied by the Plaintiff six times.

(D) When the sales of member stores have decreased due to the outbreak of beef and IMF situation at the time of 1998, and sales of some member stores have decreased below 3 million won per month, the Plaintiff provided promotional and human resources free of charge for six months in order to increase the sales of such stores. In the case of Nonparty 1’s (name omitted), the Plaintiff planned a special support for sales activation from November 1, 1998 to June 1999. However, Nonparty 1 did not make self-help efforts to increase sales, the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff a letter of confirmation that 300 meters away from May 1998 (name omitted) and 300 meters away from 30 meters away from the 38th member cooperatives in Daejeon (name omitted), and the Plaintiff did not directly submit to the Plaintiff a letter of confirmation that all promotional and goods were signed by 25 members of the 38th member stores in Daejeon (name omitted) to purchase the new product at the 9th member stores, and the Plaintiff did not directly recommend the new product of the same kind of equipment to purchase.

(E) On the other hand, on February 10, 198, the Plaintiff explained that the proposal was neither against the original franchise agreement nor against the fact. On the other hand, on the part of Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff made efforts to support Nonparty 1 without making self-help efforts, but Nonparty 1 transferred the Plaintiff’s responsibility to the Plaintiff, and damaged the reputation by having the franchise store sign the proposal made up of the matters contrary to the franchise agreement. Nonparty 1 sent a warning to Nonparty 1 on the ground that he did not cooperate under the Plaintiff’s business policy and operational rules, and that Nonparty 1 refused to affix the seal to the letter of consent to the promotion of sales pursuant to the promotional support.

(F) On February 22, 1999, the Plaintiff held the event of “12th nationwide Barun Convention” in Busan, in which officers and employees of the Plaintiff’s representative director, etc., the representative director of the chain store, the shop occupant of the chain store, and outside personnel participated. Nonparty 1 did not attend the store, and only the occupant himself was present at the store, but only the store owner was elected, and the president of the franchise store council (the consultative body of the franchisees) shall be elected by direct election, and the president of the franchise store council (the representative of the franchisees) shall protruding out to the effect that the president of the chain is non-Confidence, and there was an disturbance, such as preventing the employees from doing so.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff again sent a warning to Nonparty 1 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s reputation was damaged by Nonparty 1’s act of disturbance.

(G) On the other hand, on May 11, 1999, the Plaintiff’s employee visited the above (name omitted). Nonparty 1’s (name omitted), warehouse, air conditioners, and garbage juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice juice just.

(h) However, around June 4 of the same year, when the plaintiff company investigated and analyzed the use of the (name omitted) sirens, the non-party 1 contributed to the interview of SBS broadcast’s “s interview” and made a statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall purchase at KRW 40,70,00 if the Plaintiff’s headquarters goes through, KRW 47,850,00.” However, the price of KRW 47,850 supplied by the Plaintiff is below 57,20,00 among the time of the Plaintiff’s manufacture, and the price of other franchises supplied by the Plaintiff is also lower than the price provided by the Plaintiff.

(i) The Plaintiff terminated the franchise agreement on June 21 of the same year on the ground that the act of Nonparty 1 constitutes grounds for termination of the contract under Article 9(1) of the franchise agreement.

On the other hand, Article 23(1)1 of the Act and Article 36(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act refer to the so-called individual rejection of transaction by an individual enterpriser against the other party to the transaction. However, such individual refusal constitutes an unfair trade practice where the other party to the transaction continues to engage in a continuous transaction transaction, unlike the ‘joint refusal of transaction,' which is a type of other refusal under the free market economy system, does not constitute an unfair trade practice in itself, and it does not constitute an act of refusal. The refusal of transaction is likely to cause difficulties in business activities by excluding a particular business opportunity or to make it difficult for a particular business operator to conduct business activities, or where it is conducted as a means to secure effectiveness in order to achieve the purpose of compulsory transaction as prohibited under the same Act, and it constitutes an unfair trade practice which is prohibited by the Fair Trade Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du19868, May 18, 200).

According to the facts acknowledged above, the series of acts of signing, protruding out the venue, and broadcasting interview with Nonparty 1's recommendation is a non-cooperative act or an act impairing the plaintiff's reputation in the business policy and operation rules of the headquarters, which is the reason for termination of the contract as stipulated in the franchise agreement, and the fact of delinquency is also acknowledged at least three times, and the plaintiff's violation of the duty to use only the raw and secondary materials supplied by the plaintiff, which can be the core element of the franchise agreement, by keeping and selling juice juices. Thus, the plaintiff's termination of the franchise agreement is based on the trust relationship between the franchise operator and the franchise agreement in light of the characteristics of the above mutual respect. Furthermore, the trust relationship is already destroyed due to the series of acts such as the above acts of Nonparty 1. In such a case, the exercise of the plaintiff's right to terminate the franchise business cannot be said to have been abused with the intent of making it difficult for the plaintiff to conduct business activities, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's use of other means designated by the plaintiff's franchise or its equipment to secure the above legitimate purpose of termination.

After all, the plaintiff's argument is reasonable, and the defendant's argument is groundless.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the above orders of the defendant are all unlawful, and all of them are revoked, and the plaintiff's claim for it is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)