Cheongchul Law Firm (Attorneys in charge: Eom Sang-yoon, Lee Young-kyung) represented the defendant store owner and succeeded in obtaining a complete victory ruling, dismissing all claims from the plaintiff, who was claiming that the operation rights of the franchise convenience store were theirs and sought damages.

The plaintiff, while managing the franchise convenience store at the request of the defendant, alleged that they had the actual operation rights during the franchise contract period and filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the confirmation of operation rights and damages. In response, Cheongchul Law Firm represented the defendant in filing a prohibition against business interference against the plaintiff, and responded to the main lawsuit.

In this case, the plaintiff was arguing that they were the actual operator by utilizing the fact that they were realistically occupying the store as the manager of the convenience store, while failing to comply with the defendant's request to cease business interference. Thus, the main issues in this case were what evidence the plaintiff had for their claim of operation rights to the convenience store, what the terms of the agreement with the defendant were, and whether the plaintiff could claim operation rights against the franchise headquarters by excluding the defendant based on that agreement.

Furthermore, separately from the main lawsuit, due to the plaintiff's occupation of the store, the defendant was incurring damages. Therefore, it was crucial to secure the store through a business interference injunction application to prevent the plaintiff from further involvement in the operation of the convenience store.

The court accepted the claims of Cheongchul Law Firm, recognizing that the existence of the agreement claimed by the plaintiff was not acknowledged and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. In particular, for the rights holder to change according to the franchise convenience store franchise agreement with the franchise headquarters, consent from the headquarters is necessary, and case law also recognizes that consent from the headquarters is required for the transfer of operation rights of the convenience store.

Cheongchul explained the legal principles as mentioned above, emphasizing that the defendant exercised the operation rights in practice as the store owner, the inconsistency in the content of the agreement claimed by the plaintiff, and that the operation rights holder could not change solely based on the agreement between both parties (the plaintiff and defendant). The court accepted most of those arguments.

Additionally, the Cheongchul Law Firm won the business interference prohibition injunction filed against the plaintiff, obtaining a court order that prevents the plaintiff from entering the store in dispute. Thanks to this, the defendant was able to secure the actual operation rights of the store before the main verdict, minimizing damages and quickly normalizing operations to prevent further losses. If they had not received the injunction decision, even if the main case was won, business difficulties due to the plaintiff's interference would have continued.

Besides convenience stores, transactions involving the transfer of franchise stores are occurring frequently, and disputes arising from them are also numerous. It is believed that this case will serve as a reference for related dispute matters in the future.

If you require a clear solution to disputes similar to this case, please feel free to contact Cheongchul Law Firm.