1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a franchise store lease agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the purport that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a store to engage in business activities for the sale of goods in the same form as a voluntary brand business method using the trade name, trademark, service mark, emblem, place of business, etc. of voluntary brand, and provided education and resource control for that business activities. The Plaintiff agreed to receive down payment, monthly royalty, etc. in return, and the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a store to engage in business activities for the sale of goods in the same form as that of voluntary brand business, and received education and resource control for that business activities, and paid down payment, monthly royalty, etc. in return (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. Article 3(1) and (2) of the instant contract provides that “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the down payment of KRW 39 million in lump sum at the time of entering into the contract, but this down payment shall not be returned to the Plaintiff as expendable money (Paragraph 1). The down payment includes the Plaintiff’s right to operate stores, such as granting permission for the use of the place of business, support for, cooking education manuals and management guidance expenses for business activities, material value of the relevant store, etc. (Paragraph 2). Article 4 provides that “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant a fixed amount of KRW 300,000 per month in return for the Defendant’s use of the place of business and management support.”

[Ground for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 2, and publication of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The provision concerning the return of down payment stipulated in Article 3(1) of the contract of this case is governed by Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”) or Article 9 (the duty of an enterpriser to restore to the duty of compensation due to the cancellation or termination of a contract or the duty of compensation unfairly mitigated).