1. Case summaryA defendant was a franchisor operating a franchise restaurant serving coffee and sandwiches. A plaintiff was a franchisee executing a franchise agreement with the defendant. The plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the defendant for the reasons that the operating profits displayed on its 인터넷 바카라 was different from the actual operating profits, and the franchisor bound the franchisee to a certain selling price without a justifiable reason.
2. The franchisee’s 인터넷 바카라The plaintiff asserted that it had entered into the franchise agreement on reliance of information that was disclosed on the franchisor’s 인터넷 바카라: the cost of raw materials accounted for about 25% of the gross sales, which constitutes an act of providing false and exaggerated information. The plaintiff also asserted that the personnel of the defendant had refused to accept the request that the plaintiff had made several times to discuss an increase in the selling price, which constitutes an act of unreasonably restraining prices.
3. The court’s decision: the claims filed by the plaintiff are dismissed.The court excluded all the allegations made by the plaintiff and dismissed all the claims filed by the plaintiff. With regard to the allegation of false and exaggerated information, the court excluded the allegation on the ground that an exaggerated expression of advertisements may exist to the extent permitted under social norms; it is clearly indicated on the 인터넷 바카라 of the defendant that costs and operating profits may vary depending on the operation form of respective stores; and the ratio of raw material cost reported by the other franchisees of the defendant sustains at around 30%.
With regard to the allegation of unreasonable restriction to a certain price, the court admitted that the personnel of the defendant had refused to accept the plaintiff’s request for an increase in the selling price, but it was hard for the court to see that the refusal is sufficient for the court to accept the plaintiff’s allegation.
4. Our assistanceOn behalf of the defendant, we argued that the operating profits on the 인터넷 바카라 is not significantly different from the actual operating profits reported by ordinary franchisees of the defendant on the basis of the analysis information on income and loss records of the other franchisees. We also noted the unreasonableness of the raw material cost ratio discretionally calculated by the plaintiff. Finally, we emphasized that in view of the expression, “Costs and operating profits may vary depending on the operation form of respective stores” on the 인터넷 바카라 of the defendant, it cannot be interpreted in this way that the defendant will achieve profits that are exactly identical to the operating profits stated on the 인터넷 바카라.
In addition, we argued that a franchisor’s act of recommending a franchisee to follow its pricing policy or requiring a franchisee to discuss a change or modification of a selling price in advance does not constitute an act of restricting a franchisee to a certain price.
□ Attorneys in charge: Baek Gwang-Hyeon and Kim Ji-soo
