1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 14,956,617 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from August 23, 2017 to September 26, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff is running a cartech franchise business under the trade name of “C”. On the other hand, the term of the contract with the Defendant is two years, and the Defendant grants the Defendant the right to operate the “TG same-sex store” to the Defendant. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff provided education and training for the Defendant and the Defendant’s employees, and provided the Defendant with goods necessary for the franchise business, and entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant as to the amount of KRW 10,000 (excluding value-added tax), KRW 5,00,000 (excluding value-added tax), as educational expenses, and KRW 3% (excluding value-added tax) of the monthly card sales by no later than the fifth day of each following month (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”).

B. According to the instant franchise agreement, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 23,00,000,000 in total, including KRW 13,000,000 on November 12, 2016 and KRW 10,000,00 on November 21, 2016. From December 14, 2016, the Defendant operated the “C Daegu-roro store” in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, operated the said business around February 1, 2017.

C. On March 13, 2017, the Defendant terminated the instant franchise agreement on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated the obligation to provide an information disclosure statement, the obligation to deposit franchise fees, the obligation to provide a franchise agreement in advance, and the obligation to provide information on expected profit-making circumstances pursuant to the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”), and sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content to the effect that the Plaintiff had already paid franchise fees, etc. and that the said certificate reached the Plaintiff on March 14, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the purport of Gap’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as equipment and materials worth KRW 24,423,30 on December 15, 2016, including the sum of KRW 24,148,300, and KRW 275,000 on December 17, 2016, for the instant franchise business.