The Defendant: (a) was a woman D and a high school store of the complainant, and the above D was an English student in terms of the foregoing private teaching institute No. 2; (b) had an interest in the operation of the private teaching institute; and (c) entered into a franchise agreement on the charge of No. 5 of the above private teaching institute around January 2015; and (d) had the name of the franchise owner as the complainant due to the circumstances in the above D; and (c) stated in the form-based agreement that “3 million won for monthly franchise and 80 million won for human expenses,” etc. However, taking into account the friendly relationship, the Defendant determined the effective contract terms that the two verbally agreed to provide “one million won for monthly franchise and 40 million won for human expenses.”

On the other hand, the Defendant borrowed 20 million won from the complainant on August 2015 in relation to the other chain store contracts. However, when the Defendant failed to make any changes, the Defendant had 18 insurance contracts subscribed by the Defendant at the time, and had 10 new insurance contracts purchased through the insurance designers through the insurance designers (the complainants received 18 million won from the company for concluding the contract). As above, the Defendant tried to bring a lawsuit against the complainants on the ground of the contract, stating that the complainants were in possession of the above contracts prepared in the form, and that they were in possession of the said contracts.

On February 3, 2017, the Defendant filed a civil suit seeking “payment of unpaid franchise amounting to KRW 69 million,” against the complainant at the Ulsan District District District Court civil petition office located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and submitted the said contract accompanied by the said contract.

However, the above facts, as mentioned above, have a valid oral contract between the defendant and the complainant, and the above contract is concluded.