(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.29 2013가단27907

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.29 2013가단27907

프랜차이즈비용 등

Text

1. The Defendant is 6% per annum from January 1, 2010 to January 29, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant to allow the use of a license, such as the Plaintiff’s mission and altitude, and to receive the price. Although the Defendant did not pay the insurance premium, user fee, etc. under the above agreement and terminated the said agreement, the Defendant continues to engage in an unfair competition act using the Plaintiff’s trade name or similar trade name without permission.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff not less than 54,00 percentage of the unpaid insurance premiums to the Plaintiff as a total of 7,112.5 percentage of the franchise fee, 22,500 percentage of the franchise fee, and 54,000 percentage of the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to an unfair competition act using the Plaintiff’s trade name, etc. after the termination of the franchise contract, and first of all, seek payment of not less than 20,000 percentage of the unpaid insurance premiums.

B. As to the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the party that the Defendant entered into a franchise contract is not the Plaintiff (DGM Group B.V.); (b) the Plaintiff or B is a “B” having a legal personality separate from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “B”); and (c) the Plaintiff or B is not obliged to pay the insurance premium and usage fee by failing to perform its obligations under the franchise contract, such as issuance of a certificate, training of instructors, development of lecture materials, etc. so that the Plaintiff or B can operate an educational institution certified by the International Air Transport Association (ITSA); and (c) the Defendant does not intentionally use the Plaintiff’s trade name and thus, it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. Determination

(a) Facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence No. 1-1, No. 4 and No. 9.

1) The Plaintiff (DGM Group B.V.) is a company that has its principal office in the Netherlands and that engages in education on the management of hazardous substances and specialized transportation services for hazardous substances.

The defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가단511827

-서울동부지방법원 2015.11.18 2014가단58307

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.10.19 2016가단116789

-대전지방법원 2020.09.16 2019가합102479

-수원지방법원 2020.05.26 2019나66255