A. The defendant is a company aimed at the educational service business, franchise business, printing, and publishing business of the brand called "C".

B. On April 18, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with the Daejeon Daejeon Branch (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with the effect that “The Plaintiff is running the Defendant’s regional headquarters (hereinafter “branch office”) with the business territory of the Daejeon Seo-gu, Dong-gu, and Jung-gu as its business territory from April 18, 2012 to December 31, 2012, and that “The Plaintiff is acting for the Defendant within the said business territory to perform duties such as the recruitment of franchisees, the establishment of a franchise store, the distribution of goods necessary for the franchise store, and the support, education, and control of franchisees.”

Article 6 (2) and (3) of the franchise agreement of the instant branch shall be renewed in writing if there is no ground for disqualification falling under the termination provision of Article 37 during the period of business. In the event that the Plaintiff or the Defendant intends to terminate the franchise agreement of the instant branch, he/she shall notify the other party of his/her intent to refuse to renew the franchise agreement one month prior to the expiration date of the agreement. Article 37 (1) and (3) of the franchise agreement of the instant branch provides that “Where it is difficult for the other party to continue business transactions with trust due to the occurrence of any matter falling under any subparagraph of Article 37 (1), the Defendant shall notify the Plaintiff of the document demanding correction thereof specifying the violation of the agreement, and if the correction is not made within the corrective period, the franchise agreement of the instant branch may be terminated. The Defendant may terminate the franchise agreement of the instant case without delay without the peremptory notice.”

C. The instant franchise agreement for the branch offices has been renewed even after the lapse of December 31, 2012, which was the business period, and the Defendant, on March 10, 2014, did not manage the franchise store by the Plaintiff.