1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 28,126,00 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 28,126,00 on January 16, 2018 on September 4, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant to establish a new store E (hereinafter “instant store”) under the underground subparagraph D located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu, and paid a total of KRW 41,150,000 for franchise fees.

B. According to the above contract, the Defendant was responsible for the interior works of the main station, which the Plaintiff had been operating for more than 10 years at the location of the instant store, and the removal works of the interior station, cleaning, fire fighting, and tenting works were implemented until January 9, 2018.

C. On January 10, 2018, the progress of interior works was suspended.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 9 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant unilaterally suspended the construction work while the Plaintiff was carrying out the interior work and unjustly reversed the instant contract, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the statement in the evidence No. 2, No. 4, No. 1, and No. 9, there were several exchanges of opinions on the interior of interior works between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on several occasions during the construction process, and the progress of interior works was interrupted on January 10, 2018 as the difference between the two parties was narrow, and the subsequent discussion was made on the issue of changing the construction cost settlement and the existing franchise contract from the Plaintiff to the system sales contract that only purchases equipment from the Defendant. The Plaintiff demanded the details of the settlement of construction cost settlement, and the Plaintiff’s statement of construction cost settlement (Evidence No. 2) presented to the Defendant by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s statement that the construction cost would be refunded to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s remainder after deducting the aforementioned construction cost from the construction cost return of KRW 111,840,000,00.1.