1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 24,780,00 for each Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 11, 2017 to July 4, 2018; and (b).

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company engaged in coffee chain, direct store, agency operation, etc., and constitutes a franchisor under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchis Business Act”), and Defendant C is a representative of the Defendant Company as an internal director.

The Plaintiff opened and operated D stores from February 15, 2017 to D stores (hereinafter “instant franchise store”) as a franchise business operator granted a franchise license from the Defendant Company, and closed the store around May 10, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff, upon hearing the explanation of the Defendant C, etc., paid KRW 35.2 million to the Defendant Company at the expense of KRW 35.2 million, including the franchise fee and the interior cost, and drafted a franchise agreement between the Defendant Company as a product supply contract (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) around February 14, 2017.

The Defendants denies that the establishment of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company is merely a product supply contract, but it does not constitute a franchise agreement under the Franchise Business Act, but the term “franchise business” means a continuous business relationship in which a franchisor allows its franchisees to use its own trademark, service mark, trade name, signboard, or any other business marks to sell goods or services in accordance with certain quality standards or business methods, and supports, educates, and controls its franchisees in regards to their management, business activities, etc., and franchisees pay franchise fees to the franchisor in return for the use of business marks and the support and training for their management, business activities, etc. (see Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Franchise Business Act), and the overall purport of the arguments appears to have been presented by the Plaintiff with the mark of the Defendant Company, while the Defendant Company sells products supplied by the Defendant Company using its business marks, as well as the support and training for the Plaintiff’s management, business activities, etc.