1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in coffee manufacturing and distribution business, franchise business, etc., and the Plaintiff wishes to operate a branch office of brand C operated by the Defendant.

B. On September 10, 2017, the Plaintiff sought advice from the Defendant on the Defendant’s side and the Kaba Pon in the D department store C (hereinafter “instant car page”) operated by the Defendant.

C. On September 23, 2017, the Plaintiff wired the Defendant’s account totaling KRW 20 million on November 4, 2017, and KRW 20 million on November 4, 2017.

From November 8, 2017, the Plaintiff, while operating the instant carpet from November 28, 2017, discontinued the operation of the instant carpet and demanded the Defendant to return KRW 20 million verbally after cancelling the operation of the instant carpet around November 28, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”).

A) The Plaintiff is a franchisor under Article 10 of the Franchise Business Act, and the Plaintiff is a prospective franchisee who has consulted with the Defendant to enter into a franchise agreement. The Defendant received a franchise fee without providing the Plaintiff with an information disclosure statement and documents on the current status of neighboring franchisees under the Franchise Business Act, and provided the Plaintiff with false and exaggerated information, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the franchise fee in accordance with Article 10 of

Even if the contract was cancelled by the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is obligated to return KRW 20 million paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

3) Since the Defendant violated the obligation to deposit franchise fees prohibited by the Franchise Business Act and the obligation to provide false and exaggerated information, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Defendant for KRW 20 million of the franchise fee paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. (B) The Defendant’s assertion 1) the Defendant concludes a franchise store agreement with the Plaintiff on a regular basis, and KRW 20 million of the franchise fee from the Plaintiff on the pretext of facility costs and franchise expenses.