logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.06.21 2015가합101557
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s franchise education business 1) The Plaintiff is engaged in book publishing, franchise education business, etc. related to education of history, books, fields, and fields with the trade name of “I”, “J”, or “K”. 2) The above franchise education business is conducted in a manner that the Plaintiff secure the head of the center and the members of the premium, etc. The head of the center shall have exclusive business rights within his/her jurisdiction by entering into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff and a certain area with respect to the business of the region.

Accordingly, the head of the Center shall be provided with the Plaintiff with the teaching materials, educational programs, etc., and pay the Plaintiff subscription fees, the amount of teaching materials, etc., and receive profits from the tuition by educating members (students) using the above teaching materials and educational programs within his/her jurisdiction.

The member of the Council (special member) shall have jurisdiction over a narrow range of area than the head of the Center, and have exclusive business rights in the area, and the method of operation is the same as the head of the Center.

In addition, in order to separately train students as a professional instructor with K’s “K” education program, the Plaintiff grants the authority to teach students as a professional instructor of K after receiving a certain tuition fee.

B. On September 28, 2006, Defendant B entered into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendants with the Daejeon District Headquarters, and renewed it several times, and the said franchise agreement was terminated on December 31, 201, and the said franchise agreement was terminated on June 2012. The part related to the instant case in the franchise agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant F, G, and H is as follows (the content of each education center agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant F, and H is also the content of each education center franchise agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant F, G, and H, as well as the brand, program, and franchise business system of the “K” [Plaintiff] and the Defendant B [Defendant B].

arrow