TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2017Da248803, 248810 Decided June 15, 2018 ¡¼Restitution of Unjust Enrichment, etc.¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] In a case where an information disclosure statement as prescribed under Article 2 Subparag. 10 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act includes terms unfavorable to a franchisee, and such terms were either registered with the Fair Trade Commission and disclosed to the public or provided to the franchisee before the signing of the franchise agreement, whether it is possible to consider that the said terms have either become a part of the franchise agreement by themselves, or naturally been incorporated into the contents of the franchise agreement without any separate arrangement (negative) [2] Standard of determining whether there has been an implicit arrangement between a franchisor and a franchisee over the franchise agreement, which includes disadvantageous terms to a franchisee [3] In cases where: (a) in a court decision, there is no indication of a specific and direct determination regarding facts alleged by the parties concerned, but it is still possible to find out whether the allegation is accepted or not when put into perspective of the general idea of the reasoning of the judgment; or, (b) it is evident that the allegation will be dismissed even though the court did not actually render such judgment, whether there is omission in a judgment (negative) [4] Whether Article 64 of the Commercial Act is applicable or applicable by analogy to not only a claim arisen from commercial activities but also a claim equivalent thereto (affirmative) [5] In a case where Franchisor A claimed and received from franchisees, including Franchisee B, a certain amount of money in proportion to the sales revenue under the name of ¡°SCM Adm¡± (Administration Fee) without contractual ground, and Franchisee B filed a claim for the reimbursement of the amount equivalent to the money, alleging that such payment of money constitutes unjust enrichment, the case holding that the statute of limitations for the aforementioned claim for return of unjust enrichment expires when it is not exercised for 5 years, according to Article 64 of the Commercial Act

Prev	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Hu1454 Decided June 21, 2018 ¡¼Denial Adjudication (Trademark)¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4200 Decided June 15, 2018¡¼Defamation¡½