logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.10.24 2019가단221959
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the instant claim, entered into a “C red store franchise agreement” with the Defendant, a business proprietor of the brand “C” on January 2018, but the Plaintiff continued to close down the business around October 2018. At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant explained that the estimated sales amount at the time of operating a franchise amounting to KRW 50 million to KRW 70 million per month was below the average monthly sales amounting to KRW 23 million. The Plaintiff started operating the business at a shop recommended by the Defendant through the analysis of the business district, and the Defendant erred in the business district analysis and the recommendation of the store. Since the opening point, the Defendant failed to comply with the support agreement such as continuous promotion of the franchise store, etc., and thereafter, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff’s total damages, namely, KRW 50 million, KRW 360,000 per annum, KRW 360,000 per annum, KRW 6360,000 per annum, KRW 46360,000.

2. As to the above argument by the plaintiff, the defendant did not explain that the sales amount anticipated to the plaintiff at the time of the franchise agreement was equivalent to KRW 50 million to KRW 70 million per month, and the defendant did not demand the plaintiff to open the specific store, and the defendant did not merely ask the plaintiff to open the specific store, but the defendant did not introduce it to the plaintiff on the ground that there is an appropriate store through a licensed real estate agent, and then the defendant was placed a fine for five times, which was introduced to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not dispute that the plaintiff decided the store by comparing the store that the defendant introduced and the plaintiff's own flag store, etc., and that the store was opened after the plaintiff decided to open the store. The plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove that

arrow