1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 111,240,00 and KRW 55,620,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 55,620,00 from December 4, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a member shop in Namsan store with the Defendant.

B. According to the above contract, the Plaintiff, a franchisor, shall run the interior work of the franchise store, and the Defendant, a franchisee, must pay the construction cost of KRW 185,40 million. 40% of the construction cost prior to the commencement of the construction work, 30% of the construction cost at the completion of 50%, and 30% of the construction cost at the completion of the construction work.

C. On November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the interior works and completed 50% on December 3, 2018, and completed the construction works on December 21, 2018. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the construction price of KRW 7,4160,00 to the Plaintiff on November 16, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 3 and 5 (including a provisional number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above findings of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of construction cost of KRW 111,240,00 (i.e., KRW 185,40,000 - KRW 74,160,000) and 55,620,000, which is 30% of the total construction cost (i.e., KRW 185,40,000 x 0.3), with respect to the amount of KRW 50% from December 4, 2018, which is the day following the date on which the construction is completed, 5,620,000, which is the remainder of 30%, from December 22, 2018 to March 15, 2019, the following day after the date on which the construction is completed, to pay damages for delay by 21% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant arbitrarily suspended the Plaintiff’s course of study that begins from January 2019.

(3) The obligation to maintain the facility of a franchise store was not fulfilled, and (4) a separate expense that was not in a franchise agreement was required, and (5) a defendant franchise store is limited to the event of the entire franchise store.