(a) 2,145,00 won and the rate of 15% per annum from December 12, 2015 to the date of full payment.

가. 프랜차이즈 가맹계약의 위반 갑 제2, 5 내지 11호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 영상에 의하면, 피고는 2014. 5. 20. 원고와 사이에, 원고가 운영하는 ‘킹콩떡볶이’ 가맹사업에 가맹점으로 참여하는 내용의 가맹계약(이하 ‘이 사건 가맹계약’이라고 한다)을 체결하였고, 이 사건 가맹계약 기간은 2014. 5. 20.부터 2017. 5. 19.까지인 사실, 그런데 피고는 2014. 12월경 매출이 부진하다는 이유로 가맹사업을 중단하였고, 2015. 2월경부터 ‘B’이라는 상호로 동종의 분식점 영업을 하는 사실, 이 사건 가맹계약에 따르면 가맹점은 일방적으로 영업을 폐지할 경우 위약벌을 지급하기로 약정한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고는 가맹점 영업을 일방적으로 폐지하여 이 사건 가맹계약을 위반하였다

As such, there is a duty to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment (1), Article 31(2)3 of the instant franchise agreement provides that the Defendant may terminate the instant franchise agreement “where the Plaintiff does not make any effort for the success of franchise business,” and the Plaintiff failed to perform his/her duty despite having promised to be provided with low-cost logistics to the Defendant at the time of the instant franchise agreement, and the cause for termination of the instant franchise agreement under Article 31(2)3 has occurred due to the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her duty despite having promised to be able to be provided with low-cost logistics. As such, the Defendant asserted that the instant franchise agreement was terminated on or before December 2014, but it is insufficient to find that the written evidence of subparagraphs 5 and 6 of the instant franchise agreement was insufficient to acknowledge that the cause for termination under Article 31(2)3 of the instant franchise agreement has occurred, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) The defendant is fair in franchise business transactions.