프랜차이즈(Franchise)라고 함은 상품이나 서비스의 배포나 공급에 관련된 상표권, 상호권, 의장권, 영업비밀 등의 지적재산권 또는 영업상의 재산권을 의미하고, 프랜차이즈계약(franchise agreement)이라고 함은 프랜차이즈계약자 또는 가맹계약자(franchisee)가 프랜차이즈사업자 또는 가맹사업자(franchisor)의 상표, 상호, 영업비밀 등을 사용하여 일정한 종류의 상품이나 서비스를 배포 또는 공급하기로 하는 내용의 명시적 또는 묵시적인 형태의 계속적 상사계약을 의미한다. 1995년말에 있었던 상법개정에서는 프랜차이즈를 상행위의 하나로 포함시키는 규정을 두게 되었고, 1997년 2월에는 공정거래위원회가 프랜차이즈에 관한 불공정거래행위의 유형과 기준을 마련하여 고시하였으나 법적 대응으로는 불완전한 면이 있다. 따라서 본고에서는 프랜차이즈계약과 관련한 법적 문제점을 대내적 법률관계와 대외적 법률관계로 나누어 살펴보는바 대내적 법률관계로는 프랜차이즈계약의 체결, 프랜차이즈계약의 이행, 가맹 계약자의 원재료구입, 경쟁품의 취급제한과 품질통제, 프랜차이즈계약의 종료 등에 관한 문제점들을 살펴보도록 한다. 특히, 계약당사자들 사이의 내부적 분쟁이 발생한 경우에 계약조항의 일부가 독점규제법에 위반된다는 사실을 토대로 해서 그 효력을 다투거나 공정거래위원회의 시정조치를 전제로 해서 손해배상을 청구하는 경우에는 독점규제법하의 문제가 중요하므로 독점규제법도 검토한다. 대외적 법률관계로서는 우선 상법상 명의대여자로서의 책임을 살펴보고, 제조물책임을 포함한 불법행위책임과 상표권자로서의 의무 그리고 상표권의 취소 등이 중요한 논점으로 등장한다.
For the past ten years or so, a substantial number of retail shops or independent shops have disappeared and have been replaced by franchised shops with the same name or mark all over the country. With the increase of franchised shops, there have been a increasing number of disputes between franchisers and franchisees, which did not reach the judicial court for various reasons. It is not certain, however, whether satisfactory remedies are available for those disputes or any other potential disputes concerning franchise agreements even if they are reviewed under the current statutes by the judicial court. The statutes which are covered by this paper includes the Commercial Code, the Civil Code, the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and the Trademark Act. The Commercial Code provides that a business person or a business entity which has allowed others to use its name including its tradename is liable to the third party with regard to any contract which was concluded between the third party and the person who borrowed the name(Section 24 of the Commercial Code). And, also, the Commercial Code has been amended to enlist franchise agreements into the category of commercial activities without any further relevant provisions for franchise agreements. It was held by the judicial court, however, that franchisees were not regarded as a person who borrowed the franchisor`s name under the Commercial Code with the result that a third party might not claim any damages against the franchisor. The Trademark Act provides that registered trademark owners are entitled to grant others non-exclusive license to use the trademark. Although non-exclusive licenses are valid without registration of non-exclusive license, trademark registration [141] may itself be cancelled when the trademark owners have allowed licensees to use their trademarks without registration for those non-exclusive licenses. Accordingly, franchisors are recommended to make registration for non-exclusive licenses even when there are several tens of franchisees. It was also held by the court that ex-franchisee`s petition to cancel the registration for the franchised trademark was not contrary to the ex-franchisee`s good faith. Questions arise, however, as to the policy reason for requiring the franchisors to make registration for non-exclusive licenses. Fair Trade Commission has issued various guidelines to enforce the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. With regard to franchisee agreements, there appear to be two sets of guidelines: Guidelines concerning Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Agreements are designed for domestic franchise agreements and, on the other hand, Guidelines concerning Unfair Trade Practices and Others in International Contracts are designed for International franchise agreements concluded between domestic enterprise and foreign enterprise. The questions then, are why there should be two sets of guidelines and whether they are different to each other. It is submitted in this paper that relevant statutory provisions be amended to get rid of any exceptions for international contracts.
(0)
(0)