A. On January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, between the lease deposit amounting to KRW 15,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000 (on January 24, 2013), and the lease agreement between January 24, 2013 and January 23, 2016, with respect to one commercial building on the right side (hereinafter “instant store”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

In order to transfer the instant store, the Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident at the instant store on May 2015, and the Plaintiff expressed his intention to transfer the store to the headquarters and was in the color of the transferee.

C. The Plaintiff sought approval for transfer or acquisition of the headquarters to D around July 2015, and requested the Defendant to enter into a new lease agreement with E, etc., but the Defendant rejected such request.

The Plaintiff and E requested the Defendant to conclude a new lease agreement by December 2015, but the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s “one year, more than one year, and only one year,” etc., the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation of business closure requesting the termination of the franchise agreement to the head office on December 11, 2015.

E. Since then, the Plaintiff received KRW 3,750,00 after disposing of air conditioners, emitting machines, etc. installed in the instant store to a third party, and the appraised value of the business premium (unauthorized asset) related to the instant store as of December 1, 2015 is KRW 22,50,000.

F. At the time of opening the instant store, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000 to G before the opening of the store, and on July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 25,000,000 as the premium for the instant store from E, etc. on July 30, 2015, and a notary public was issued and delivered a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the law firm 783 on the same amount.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, and Eul evidence 1.