2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2016 Chicago1004, Feb. 1, 2016

A. On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with the Defendant to operate a DNA store (hereinafter “instant franchise store”) upon the recommendation of the Defendant’s employees, which would have a net profit of KRW 8,000,000 per month when the Plaintiff opened and operates the Defendant’s franchise store at around 1 South Korea, and paid KRW 136,350,000 to the Defendant by August 5, 2013.

B. On August 14, 2013, the original Defendant entered into a debt repayment contract with the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 37,350,000,000 for the remainder of the interior works from September 2013 to April 2015 in 1,867,50 each month.” On the same day, an authentic deed stating the purport of acceptance of compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was written.

C. From August 2013, the Plaintiff began to operate the instant franchise store, and the Defendant expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant franchise agreement to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2013.

However, despite the Defendant’s breach of the relevant provisions of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”) and the Plaintiff’s duty to protect the business area under the instant franchise agreement, the Defendant’s expression of intent to terminate the instant franchise agreement against the Plaintiff constitutes an unlawful act against the Plaintiff.

1) The Defendant, while entering into the instant franchise agreement, was able to make a net profit of KRW 8,00,000 per month. However, since the Plaintiff’s net profit accrued while operating the instant franchise store did not reach this, it constitutes a violation of Article 9 of the Franchise Business Act prohibiting “providing information different from fact or unfacing the fact.”