2. The plaintiff's claim for damages of this case.

A. On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a credit card merchant agreement with the Defendant, who is a credit card company under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, to allow the Defendant to use the credit card, e-mail card, and pre-paid card for payment at the store operated by the Plaintiff.

B. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant temporarily suspended the validity of the contract of the said franchise store so that the Defendant may not use the credit card, check, and pre-paid card issued by the Defendant for the purpose of payment at the franchise store operated by the Plaintiff.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity of a franchise store contract requires a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the claim, and thereby, the obtaining of a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the disposition suspending the validity of the franchise store contract of the Defendant on May 19, 2015 was unreasonable and requesting the verification of the validity of the above franchise contract. However, as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Defendant does not entirely dispute the validity of the franchise contract of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this part is unlawful as it does not have any benefit of confirmation.

(Colonel) Even if the defendant’s action was taken to the effect that “the suspension of the validity of the franchise store contract of May 19, 2015 by the defendant is confirmed to be null and void,” it is difficult to view that the defendant’s disposition of the suspension of validity is unreasonable as seen later, and the plaintiff’s argument is therefore groundless).

3. Determination as to the claim for damages