1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, the franchisor of the franchise store “A” and the franchisor of the franchise business, on June 29, 2015, is between F and F that represented the Defendant on June 29, 2015, and the Defendant’s “D” store located in Ilyang-dong, Busan-gu (hereinafter “instant subject”).

(2) The franchise agreement to operate (hereinafter referred to as “instant franchise agreement”) shall contain the terms and conditions of the agreement.

A) In addition, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with F on the same day that the Plaintiff would lend KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant at zero (0,000). If the Defendant maintains the above franchise agreement for three years, the Plaintiff would not claim the above loan to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(2) However, after the conclusion of the instant franchise agreement, the Defendant failed to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff on several occasions, and sold the goods to the Plaintiff at will without prior consultation with the Plaintiff, and continued to operate the business by changing the business marks, such as the sudden trade name.

Therefore, since the instant franchise agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the agreement on December 2016, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,000,000 under the instant agreement and the penalty for delay under Article 33(3) of the instant franchise agreement, totaling KRW 35,000,000,000, and delay damages therefor.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not have entered into the instant franchise agreement with the Plaintiff and the instant agreement, and only F borrowed from the Defendant’s name only entered into the said franchise agreement and the instant agreement with the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant does not have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed money and the penalty for breach of contract. 2) Even if the Defendant is a party to the said franchise agreement and the instant agreement, the said franchise agreement is so-called unfair Gap, such as: (a) the Plaintiff, a franchisor, from time to time, changing the horses; (b) installation of high-priced facilities; and