1.(a)

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay KRW 13,716,785 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from June 19, 2016 to September 11, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant who runs the restaurant franchise business in the name of “C” (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) and paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant by January 29, 2016.

From that time, the Plaintiff operated C Chains in the 1st floor food code of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building.

B. On January 28, 2016, the day of the instant franchise agreement, the Defendant offered the information disclosure statement to the Plaintiff. On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Defendant cancelled the franchise agreement concluded with the Defendant and claimed the return of the franchise fee paid on the grounds that the Defendant did not provide the information disclosure statement in advance. The said certificate of content reached the Defendant on May 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”).

(2) If part of the franchise fee is deducted pursuant to the Franchise Business Act from the primary claim amount under Article 10(1) of the Franchise Business Act, a franchisor, who is a prospective franchisee, did not provide the franchise disclosure statement to the Plaintiff 14 days prior to the conclusion of the franchise agreement, in violation of Article 7, and thus did not provide the franchise disclosure statement to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant primarily sought a refund of the franchise fee of KRW 60 million pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Franchise Business Act.

① In spite of the discovery of quilele two times from the raw and secondary materials provided by the Defendant, efforts have not been made to correct such fact. ② Despite the fact that E, a director of the Defendant’s intra-company, does not reach a half of the advertising date of the conclusion of the contract, the protocol or process proposed by the Plaintiff.