Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Article 14 of the Franchise Act as a mandatory rule on termination
Supreme Court, Aug. 19, 2021, 2021Da225708 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does Article 14 of the Fair Franchise Transactions Act, laying down the procedure for a franchisor's termination of a franchise contract, operate as a mandatory provision, so that a clause letting a head office terminate a parcel delivery branch contract unilaterally is void and a termination notice given without that procedure has no effect?
Holding
Yes. Article 14 requires the franchisor, before terminating, to give the franchisee a grace period of at least two months, state the specific breach in writing at least twice, and warn that the contract will be terminated if the breach is not cured, and a termination without that procedure has no effect; the provision is mandatory because it gives the franchisee a chance to explain and cure, and time to prepare for the end of the franchise. Where the contract's main content is the use of the head office's trade marks, its support and control of the branch's business, and the reporting and monthly settlement in full of daily takings, the contract is a franchise business under Article 2(i) of the Act, which applies as the special law even where the contract also has the nature of a mandatum under the Civil Code. Article 11(3)(c) of the contract in this case, letting the defendant terminate unilaterally on business grounds with no objection from the plaintiff, therefore runs counter to that mandatory provision and is void in itself, so the termination notice given under it, without the statutory procedure, is ineffective.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 조항은 가맹점사업자로 하여금 유예기간 동안 계약해지사유에 대하여 해명·시정할 기회를 주고 가맹점사업자에게 가맹사업 종료에 대비할 수 있는 기간을 부여하기 위한 것으로 강행규정에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
The above provision is intended to give the franchise business operator an opportunity to explain and remedy the grounds for termination of contract during the grace period, and to afford the franchise business operator a period to prepare for the termination of the franchise business, and therefore constitutes a mandatory provision.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
가맹사업거래의 공정화에 관한 법률 제14조는 가맹본부가 가맹계약을 해지하려는 경우에는 가맹점사업자에게 2개월 이상의 유예기간을 두고 계약의 위반 사실을 구체적으로 밝히고 이를 시정하지 아니하면 그 계약을 해지한다는 사실을 서면으로 2회 이상 통지하여야 하고(제1항), 그와 같은 절차를 거치지 않은 가맹계약의 해지는 효력이 없다고 정하고 있다(제2항).
Unofficial English translation
Article 14 of the Act on the Fairness of Franchise Transactions provides that where the franchisor intends to terminate the franchise contract, it must allow the franchise business operator a grace period of at least two months, specifically state the facts of breach of contract, and give notice in writing on at least two occasions of the fact that the contract will be terminated if the breach is not remedied (paragraph (1)), and that a termination of contract that has not undergone such procedures is of no effect (paragraph (2)).
Factors
- 가맹점사업자로 하여금 유예기간 동안 계약해지사유에 대하여 해명·시정할 기회를 주고
- 가맹점사업자에게 가맹사업 종료에 대비할 수 있는 기간을 부여하기 위한 것으로
- 본사인 을 회사가 지점사업자인 갑으로 하여금 을 회사의 영업권, 상표 등 영업표지를 사용하여 택배사업을 수탁·운영하도록 하면서 갑에게 영업활동에 대한 지원과 통제를 하고
- 갑은 을 회사의 영업표지를 사용하여 택배영업을 하면서 택배전산시스템을 이용하여 을 회사에 일 단위로 매출수입금 전액을 보고하고 월 단위로 정산하는 것을 주된 내용으로 하고 있으므로
- 위 계약이 민법상 위임의 성격을 가지고 있다고 하더라도 가맹사업법이 특별법으로서 우선 적용되므로
Unofficial English translation
• giving the franchise business operator an opportunity to explain and remedy the grounds for termination of contract during the grace period, and
• being intended to afford the franchise business operator a period to prepare for the termination of the franchise business,
• B Company, as the franchisor, having the branch business operator A undertake and operate the parcel delivery business using B Company's business rights, trademarks, and other business identifiers, while providing support for and control over A's business activities, and
• A conducting parcel delivery sales using B Company's business identifiers, with the main content being that A reports the entire amount of sales revenue to B Company on a daily basis using the parcel delivery computerized system and settles accounts on a monthly basis,
• even if the above contract has the character of a mandate under the Civil Act, the Act on the Fairness of Franchise Transactions, as a special act, applies first,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2009다32560 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32560 decided September 24, 2009
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2009다32560 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Once a termination notice given without the Article 14 procedure is held ineffective, what losses may the franchisee recover from the franchisor, and how is the amount of that damages award fixed?
A later decision fixing the scope of damages for an ineffective termination notice, or a decision treating a clause of this kind as effective, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 2(i) or Article 14 of the Fair Franchise Transactions Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Primary states the requirements of Article 14 in general terms, while independent applies the standard to the specific facts and contract clause, so the form of the standard is read differently.
위 계약 조항에 따른 을 회사의 해지 통지도 가맹사업법 제14조에서 정하고 있는 적법한 절차를 거치지 않은 이상 효력이 없다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Once a termination notice given without the Article 14 procedure is held ineffective, what losses may the franchisee recover from the franchisor, and how is the amount of that damages award fixed?” vs Independent “Would the company's stated business reasons justify termination if it followed the statutory procedure?”
Primary asks what damages the franchisee may recover after an ineffective termination and how they are measured, whereas independent asks whether the stated business reasons would justify termination had the statutory procedure been followed.
위 조항은 가맹점사업자로 하여금 유예기간 동안 계약해지사유에 대하여 해명·시정할 기회를 주고 가맹점사업자에게 가맹사업 종료에 대비할 수 있는 기간을 부여하기 위한 것으로 강행규정에 해당한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon District Court, in its judgment of 16 March 2021 (2020Na63566), held that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant company was a franchise business under Article 2(i) of the Fair Franchise Transactions Act, because the defendant let the plaintiff operate a parcel delivery branch using its trade marks, supported and controlled the plaintiff's business, and received the whole of the daily takings reported through its IT system for monthly settlement. It held that Article 11(3)(c) of the contract, letting the defendant terminate unilaterally on business grounds with no objection, ran counter to the mandatory Article 14 and was void in itself, so the defendant's termination notice had no effect, and it recognised damages liability on the ground that the notice was a refusal of performance of the contract.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It confirmed that Article 14 is mandatory, following the earlier decision of 24 September 2009 (2009Da32560), and held that the court below had not misunderstood the law on franchise business or on Article 14. It dismissed the argument that the contract had been terminated by agreement as a mere challenge to the evidence assessment and fact-finding of the court of fact, and the arguments on benefit offset and limitation of liability as grounds raised for the first time on appeal, which are not lawful grounds of appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A contract under which the head office neither supports and controls the branch's business activities nor receives the whole of its takings through its own system, so that the contract is not a franchise business under Article 2(i) of the Act.
- A termination notice that follows the Article 14 procedure, with a grace period of at least two months and written notice given twice, so that the notice is effective.
- A termination agreed between the head office and the branch operator, which the Court treated as a question of evidence and fact-finding for the court of fact.
Record verification notes
Set the contract's main content against the elements the Court named: use of the head office's trade marks, its support and control of the branch's business, and the reporting and monthly settlement in full of daily takings. Then check the termination notice against Article 14: whether it stated a specific breach, whether it was given in writing at least twice, and whether the grace period was at least two months. Keep any claim for benefit offset or limitation of liability separate, since the Court refused to hear it for the first time on appeal.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 가맹계약 해지절차 등을 규정하고 있는 가맹사업거래의 공정화에 관한 법률 제14조가 강행규정인지 여부(적극) [2] 갑이 을 주식회사와 지점설치계약을 체결한 후 을 회사의 택배사업을 수탁하여 운영하였는데, 을 회사가 갑에게 ‘거래처 이탈, 물량감소 등으로 지점운영이 불가능하여 지점존속이 불가능하다고 판단될 경우 을 회사가 일방적으로 계약을 해지하여도 갑은 하등의 이의를 제기하지 못한다.’고 정한 계약 조항에 근거하여 경영상의 이유를 들어 계약을 해지한다고 통지한 사안에서, 위 계약은 가맹사업거래의 공정화에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호에서 정한 ‘가맹사업’에 해당하고, 을 회사의 해지 통지는 같은 법 제14조에서 정하고 있는 적법한 절차를 거치지 않았으므로 효력이 없다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether Article 14 of the Act on the Fairness of Franchise Transactions, which prescribes the procedures for termination of contract of a franchise contract, etc., constitutes a mandatory provision (affirmative) [2] A entered into a branch establishment contract with B Co., Ltd. and undertook and operated B Company's parcel delivery business, and in a case where B Company notified A of a termination of contract on business grounds, based on a contract clause providing that 'if it is determined that operation of the branch is impossible and the continued existence of the branch is impossible due to loss of clients, decrease in volume, etc., A may raise no objection whatsoever even if B Company unilaterally terminates the contract,' a case in which the judgment of the court below, which held that the above contract falls under 'franchise business' as defined in Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Fairness of Franchise Transactions, and that B Company's notice of termination is of no effect because it did not undergo the lawful procedures prescribed in Article 14 of the same Act, was affirmed as just
Summary of the holding
[1] 가맹사업거래의 공정화에 관한 법률 제14조는 가맹본부가 가맹계약을 해지하려는 경우에는 가맹점사업자에게 2개월 이상의 유예기간을 두고 계약의 위반 사실을 구체적으로 밝히고 이를 시정하지 아니하면 그 계약을 해지한다는 사실을 서면으로 2회 이상 통지하여야 하고(제1항), 그와 같은 절차를 거치지 않은 가맹계약의 해지는 효력이 없다고 정하고 있다(제2항). 위 조항은 가맹점사업자로 하여금 유예기간 동안 계약해지사유에 대하여 해명·시정할 기회를 주고 가맹점사업자에게 가맹사업 종료에 대비할 수 있는 기간을 부여하기 위한 것으로 강행규정에 해당한다. [2] 갑이 을 주식회사와 지점설치계약을 체결한 후 을 회사의 택배사업을 수탁하여 운영하였는데, 을 회사가 갑에게 ‘거래처 이탈, 물량감소 등으로 지점운영이 불가능하여 지점존속이 불가능하다고 판단될 경우 을 회사가 일방적으로 계약을 해지하여도 갑은 하등의 이의를 제기하지 못한다.’고 정한 계약 조항에 근거하여 경영상의 이유를 들어 계약을 해지한다고 통지한 사안에서, 위 계약은 본사인 을 회사가 지점사업자인 갑으로 하여금 을 회사의 영업권, 상표 등 영업표지를 사용하여 택배사업을 수탁·운영하도록 하면서 갑에게 영업활동에 대한 지원과 통제를 하고, 갑은 을 회사의 영업표지를 사용하여 택배영업을 하면서 택배전산시스템을 이용하여 을 회사에 일 단위로 매출수입금 전액을 보고하고 월 단위로 정산하는 것을 주된 내용으로 하고 있으므로, 위 계약은 가맹사업거래의 공정화에 관한 법률(이하 ‘가맹사업법’이라 한다) 제2조 제1호에서 정한 ‘가맹사업’에 해당하는데, 위 계약이 민법상 위임의 성격을 가지고 있다고 하더라도 가맹사업법이 특별법으로서 우선 적용되므로 계약해지절차에 관해서는 가맹사업법 제14조가 적용되고, 위 계약 조항은 강행규정인 가맹사업법 제14조에 반하는 것으로 그 자체로 무효이며, 위 계약 조항에 따른 을 회사의 해지 통지도 가맹사업법 제14조에서 정하고 있는 적법한 절차를 거치지 않은 이상 효력이 없다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 가맹사업거래의 공정화에 관한 법률 제14조 [2] 가맹사업거래의 공정화에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호, 제14조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger