1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the operation of tin food coponer (hereinafter “instant operating contract”) under which the Defendant would pay 30,000,000 won for start-up costs and 25% of monthly sales amount to the Defendant.

B. On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant on the date of entering into a contract, and distributed the remaining cost of start-up business to the Defendant on March 28, 2016, and paid KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant on March 28, 2016. However, the Plaintiff suspended the instant food copon business around May 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion that, in order to operate the instant operating contract with the Defendant within the D point, the Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant operating contract with the Defendant, would have sold the Plaintiff only by subdividing it into packages supplied by E, but it became known that the Plaintiff’s sales by subdividing it into packages without the permission to do so directly after the commencement of the business was in violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

Therefore, the instant operational contract is null and void by an anti-social legal act because it includes a business method in violation of the Food Sanitation Act, which is a mandatory law. ② Since the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff as if it were sold at the bar without implied permission, the Plaintiff would cancel the instant operational contract on the ground of deception. ③ The instant operational contract is a franchise business contract to which the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act applies, and the Defendant’s conclusion and maintenance of the contract.