2. Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G.

- - sound;

1. Defendant I pays the following agreements on behalf of the Plaintiff by May 31, 2017:

2. The plaintiff and defendant I shall withdraw all cases of seizure, provisional seizure and civil or criminal proceeding conducted by both parties within seven days after signing and sealing the agreement.

All the expenses of withdrawal consumed shall be borne by each person.

3.At the time of the preparation of this Agreement, indicate that all cases between the parties prior to the date of preparation of the Agreement shall be included in preparation for the omission, and include all claims and obligations of the plaintiff, defendant I and T.

4. The method of reimbursement shall be transferred by Defendant I to T bank account.

* The Plaintiff pays KRW 35,168,228 out of the 67,00,000 for the goods to Defendant I, and the Plaintiff pays KRW 31,831,772 to T as the outstanding amount.

Judgment on the main defense, etc. of Defendant I

A. According to the purport of the evidence No. 25 (I) and the entire pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiff, Defendant I, etc. prepared the following “Agreement” on May 17, 2017 can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and defendant I are recognized to have agreed to bring an action that will not impose any civil or criminal liability on the above cases, which are parties to franchise fee dispute, and all related cases. Thus, the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff on July 1, 2017 is a related case, which is brought against the above agreement, and is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.

(A) The text of the evidence No. 15 is shown to be the plaintiff's unilateral notification, and the validity of the agreement shall not be deemed to be null and void). Accordingly, the merits of the defendant I pointing this out.