1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the business owner of “D”, who is a restaurant located C, at the time the Plaintiff started business on March 17, 2017, and is the trademark right holder of the registered trademark “(registration number E; hereinafter “instant trademark”).

B. From April 2017, Defendant and F operated “D University Store” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) from Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G and the second floor as a partnership business. From September 2017, Defendant operated the instant restaurant solely from around September 2017.

C. Meanwhile, the franchise agreement on the restaurant of this case (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) was prepared between the Plaintiff and F with the same content as the attached Form (only the part related to the instant case) (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness F's testimony (except for the part not trusted) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is a person who operates a franchisor while running a restaurant in the name of “D”.

On May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into the instant franchise agreement with the Defendant and F, and agreed to pay KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff in the event that the Defendant and F arbitrarily changed the letos provided by the Plaintiff and arbitrarily changed the letos provided by the Plaintiff.

However, after F withdraws from the partnership, the Defendant independently operated the restaurant of this case and used the restaurant of this case without consultation with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff penalty of KRW 200,000,000 as well as damages for delay arising from a special agreement under Article 25 of the above franchise agreement.

B. The Defendant’s summary meat sales business operator registered the name “D” in the name of the Plaintiff, an employee, as the representative of H (hereinafter “H”)

Defendant and F, upon introduction from I, have been engaged in the restaurant of this case, and the Plaintiff and F.