1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) had the authority to operate the “G” stores within the nationwide Home Pers Store (hereinafter “instant goodwill”). However, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with F to store and operate the “G” (entrusted production and sales agency) (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) as follows, and paid all the acquisition amount (hereinafter “sale price”) and value-added tax, etc. as set out in the contract.

The term of the Plaintiff’s store at the seat of the Plaintiff 1 AH 1: (a) additional payment for the sales price of KRW 50 million from May 26, 2012 to May 25, 2013 (1 year); (b) KRW 2 B I 2 B I 2.6 to June 1, 2012 (no entry) KRW 60 million from July 3, 2012 to July 2, 2015 (3 years); and (c) KRW 120 million from the franchise amount of KRW 4D 40 million from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2015 (3 years); and (d) KRW 70 million from August 26, 2015 to KRW 5 million from May 25, 2012 to KRW 30 million (3 years); and

B. The details of each of the instant contracts are as follows.

(1) The Plaintiff, unlike the rest of the Plaintiffs, prepared only “facility and business right transfer contract” and “store right transfer contract” but the purpose and content of the contract seems to be the same as the rest of the Plaintiffs). (1) The instant contract is operated by the Plaintiffs to store designated by the Home P to F.

Article 9(1)(2) The F shall continue to make continuous efforts to establish a business plan for the continuous operation of the Home Plus “G” stores, to develop the main new development and names, and to control and develop the quality of goods.

(3) The F shall pay to the plaintiffs an amount calculated by deducting 25% of the Home Pler fee from the sales amount from the last day of the following month to the last day of the following month, the amount of food materials supplied, and other expenses, based on the consignment production and sales performance of the plaintiffs.

(4) The plaintiff or the non-party company does not perform its obligations under the contract of this case on the basis of the principle of good faith.