Maintaining brand consistency is the core value in franchising. This is because consumers choose the franchise brands in order to get the same product, service and price. But the current Act on Fair Trade Practices in Franchising (Fair Trade Act) considers the price control of franchise headquarters over franchisees as the unfair trade practices ('price restraint') and bans their controls because the price controls can violate pricing decision of the franchisees and restrict the price competitiveness of their products, thereby reducing consumer welfare. But the Act has drawn criticism from many economists and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to follow the Leegin decision in 2007 and reversed a precedent that had stood for close to a century by adopting rule of reason. Recently, Korean courts and the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) also adopted this permissive judicial attitude — rule of reason —for the resale price maintenance of the Fair Trade Act. Still, the current Korean Fair Trade Act does not seem to reflect the changes. Although maintaining brand uniformity is a core value and success factor of the franchise, the current Act is still understood that the coherent price policy of the franchise headquarters is prohibited and recommended prices can be only suggested. Also, a provision banning RPM is explicitly excluded under Article 38 of the same Act, and the possibility of the maximum RPM even does not seem to be permitted. Now, we need to have new consideration on the price uniformity between franchise headquarters and the franchisees. Particularly in Korea's franchising industry, competition among the franchise brands is high because headquarters are obliged to protect the franchisees, while competition among franchisees is weak. Such conditions can damage consumer welfare with the increase in price, ultimately weakening the brand competitiveness (consumer trust or satisfaction), thereby bringing a negative impact to both franchiser and franchisee.