1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s main claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B and Defendant C, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also finite.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On September 14, 2012, between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company, the franchise store agreement under which the Defendant Company supplies Aluminium products to the Plaintiff (as referred to in subparagraph 1-1, hereinafter “instant 2012 agreement”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company entered into a franchise agreement (Evidence 1-1) with respect to the supply of PVC products to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) but the said agreement became null and void by implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company. The Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement (Evidence 1-1) with the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”).

() On May 3, 2013, pursuant to Article 6 of the 2013 Agreement, the Plaintiff is the Defendant Company with a franchise of KRW 33 million (hereinafter “instant franchise”).

(2) A) The Plaintiff was supplied with sampling from the Defendant Company pursuant to the above 2013 contract, and the Plaintiff demanded correction of sampling from the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company did not supply samples modified to the Plaintiff by November 2013. As the Plaintiff demanded the return of franchise fees from the Defendant Company, the director D of the Defendant Company decided to return franchise fees to the Plaintiff on December 3 and 9, 2013. The above contract in December 3, 2013 was rescinded under the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, or the Defendant Company agreed to return the instant franchise fees to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013, even if the above 2013 contract was not rescinded by the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Company to supply samples several times, but the Defendant Company explicitly expressed its intent to refuse the payment, such as the Plaintiff’s refusal to return samples without having given consent.

Accordingly, the above contract in 2013 was rescinded on the ground of the defendant company's rejection of performance as the delivery of the complaint in this case.

C. Also, from May 2013 to May 2013, 2013.