logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.13 2015가합570372
계약무효확인
Text

1. The part of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim for confirmation of the absence of validity of the franchise agreement shall be dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person operating a franchise business of money gas sales business under the trade name of “C”.

B. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a franchise agreement with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, using the Defendant’s trade name, etc., to operate Estore (hereinafter “instant store”) in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”).

The main contents of the instant franchise agreement relating to the instant case are as follows.

Article 9 (Period of Contract and Renewal) (1) This contract shall take effect from the time both parties sign and seal, and shall take effect for two years from the date of the contract, and shall take effect for two years from the date of contract renewal or renewal.

Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases otherwise provided in this contract.

The initial contract period: Article 17 (Contract Guarantee Money) (1) of the Act from September 3, 2014 to September 2, 2016, Article 17 (Contract Guarantee Money) (1) of the Act shall pay to the Defendant a full-time KRW 3,000,000 as a contract deposit in order to secure the Defendant’s performance of this contract, the price for goods purchased from the Defendant, management guidance expenses, and other obligations against the Defendant, such as damages, etc.

② Upon the termination of the principal franchise agreement, the Defendant shall refund the Plaintiff the balance obtained by deducting the Plaintiff’s obligations to the Defendant under this Agreement, such as the Plaintiff’s duty to restore, pay, and compensate for damages, from the contract deposit under paragraph (1) of the same Article, at the time the Plaintiff’s obligation to implement the procedure is completed

Article 24 (Order and Management of Goods) (1) In order to maintain the unity and originality of “C” brand, the Plaintiff shall be supplied with the following goods, including the goods specified in Appendix 2, from the Defendant or the enterprise designated by the Defendant, and the supply price thereof shall be determined by the Defendant, and the Defendant shall not purchase the goods without prior written approval from the Defendant:

1. Protection of Defendant’s trademark rights, service mark rights, and goods.

arrow