1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 24, 2011, the plaintiff (formerly changed: Dozel Doz. Co., Ltd.) drafted a written agreement with the defendant to open WDP courses by being supplied with the program, data, and services of the WOR KFRCE DES PPEPPE PPEM (hereinafter referred to as "WDP").

According to the above agreement, all WDP lectures shall be conducted within the plaintiff's facilities, and education of the distance of WDP lectures or online education shall be prohibited, and the agreement has an effect for one year from November 24, 2010, and the plaintiff can renew the agreement for an additional one year upon acceptance by the defendant.

WDP is a multi-national company that operates the business of developing and selling computer systems and programs, and is an educational program that provides IT education to persons who have not applied employment insurance, such as unemployed, unemployed, and university students, and allows students to obtain accredited certificates of qualification such as OCA and OCP.

WDP education shall, in principle, provide offline education with an important relation to ascertaining the employment of students.

From September 201, the Plaintiff opened and operated the WP education course for 1 Madra and online 3 Madra.

【The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the evidence Nos. 2, 2, 1, and 7, the witness A’s testimony, and the entire pleadings was set up on November 24, 201, and the Defendant entered into an oral contract with the consent of the head office for the Plaintiff to conduct online WDP education with the consent of the head office separately at the time of preparation of an agreement on off-line education on November 24, 201, and entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff for the period of contract one year

However, the Defendant failed to obtain the approval of the head office, and the Plaintiff could begin online education around September 201, but the Defendant denied the contract term of five years around November 201 and notified the termination of the contract on the grounds of the expiration of the contract term.

Defendant.