1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,375,607 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from October 1, 2014 to August 21, 2015 and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as the representative of “D” in Asan City, is a person running a franchise business of “E” restaurant (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant has operated each of the instant restaurant entertainment points from April 23, 2012 to February 21, 2013 to the real estate listed in attached Table 1, and from the real estate listed in attached Table 2 from February 21, 2013 to the real estate listed in attached Table 2.

B. On July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the violation of the franchise agreement with respect to the arche store and the starting point of the instant restaurant, and notified the Defendant of the termination of each franchise agreement on July 29, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Defendant continues to engage in business by changing the trade name from each real estate listed in the separate sheet to F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, Eul evidence No. 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for prohibition of business and indirect compulsory performance

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim under the franchise agreement with the Defendant for the prohibition of the principal restaurant business operated by the Defendant by July 29, 2016, when two years have passed since the termination of the agreement, in accordance with the franchise agreement on the food store and the starting point of the instant restaurant, which entered into with the Defendant.

According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 4, Article 14 (4) of each member shop contract provides that a member store (the defendant) shall not engage in the same or similar business at the same place for two years after the termination of the franchise contract, but according to the statement of Gap evidence No. 16, Eul evidence No. 9 and 10, Gap evidence No. 4 can be acknowledged as the fact that the plaintiff voluntarily prepared by using the seals of the defendant.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the witness G’s testimony and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Defendant was running the instant restaurant business with the trade name “H” before operating the restaurant store, but the Plaintiff’s recommendation to start the franchise store business.