1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with the Defendant who runs a franchise business, whereby the Plaintiff would sell and operate the D franchise store in the H store operated by the Dol shopping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Slock shopping”), and the content of the instant case is as follows.

Article 15 (Franchis Fees and Contract Performance Bond) (1) The plaintiff shall pay the defendant a franchise fee of KRW 7 million for the right to use business marks (excluding value-added tax), KRW 3 million for education and training expenses (excluding value-added tax), and KRW 10 million in total (excluding value-added tax) at the same time as the franchise agreement is concluded.

Article 38 (Return of Franchise Fees) (1) The plaintiff may cancel this contract before the commencement of the franchise store business.

However, the amount equivalent to 10% of the franchise fee under Article 15 and the actual expenses paid by the defendant for the implementation of this contract until then.

Article 42 (Procedures for Settlement of Disputes and Competent Court) The competent court of litigation for disputes arising in connection with this contract shall be the general forum court under the Civil Procedure Act, but the competent court of the first instance may be the Seoul Central District Court under the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

B. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay the franchise fee (including educational expenses) on the ground that the salesroom was scheduled in the middle of August.

Accordingly, the plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the defendant on the following day, and the defendant issued a receipt to the plaintiff on the same day that he received the down payment of KRW 10 million.

C. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) informed the Plaintiff that salesroom occupants of the pertinent ASEAN are able to directly operate the headquarters; and (b) provided that salesroom occupants do not become salesroom occupants in the form of a franchise store; and (c) provided an interim management contract that employs the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s employee