1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 19,626,607 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from September 16, 2015 to May 16, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a franchisor that runs a boom franchise business in the name of “C”, and the Defendant is the person who entered into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff to operate E stores at the stores located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant franchise store”).

B. On September 17, 2014, the Defendant drafted an application for payment of KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff in return for business district analysis information, etc. regarding the instant franchise store.

C. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant franchise agreement with respect to the instant franchise stores, including franchise expenses, deposit, educational expenses, and interior expenses, with a total amount of KRW 346,06,00,00.

On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the franchise price to KRW 335,412,00.

Serial 1 6,800,000 on September 18, 2014; 200 on October 1, 2014; 30,000 on October 1, 2014; 30,000 on October 7, 2014; 5,000 on October 7, 200 on October 7, 2014; 14,000,000 on October 28, 2014; 30,000 on October 31, 30,00 on October 31, 200,007; 18,000,00 on July 20, 200, 200, 200 on the aggregate of 36,00,000,000,000 on August 26, 2014; 30, 2014;

D. The Plaintiff entered the instant franchise store in accordance with the instant franchise agreement, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 202,192,727 as follows.

E. On December 16, 2014, prior to the commencement of the instant franchise store business, the Defendant violated Article 7(3) of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act that prohibits the Plaintiff from concluding a franchise fee or a franchise agreement within 14 days from the date of provision of the franchise disclosure statement, etc. (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”). The Defendant, without good cause, notified the termination of the instant franchise agreement on the ground that it did not run the franchise store and carried out a large number of defects, and demanded the Plaintiff to refund the entire franchise price, such as the franchise fee paid and the interior cost.

F. Since then, the defendant is a trade name "F" at the above store.