1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant Plupt Co., Ltd. in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid:

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Co., Ltd. and Pumpt Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) are a franchisor that runs a franchise business with a trade name called “carfa”.

B. On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant Company and the Carpeta C, and entered into a new franchise agreement with the said carpeta D (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) on April 15, 2015 after being discharged.

At the time, Defendant E, the Defendant Company, was in charge of the conclusion of the instant franchise agreement.

C. On April 16, 2015, pursuant to the instant franchise agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,80,000 as a franchise deposit to the Defendant Company (including value-added tax for KRW 3,300,000 as a franchise deposit for educational expenses of KRW 5,500,000, KRW 3,000 as a franchise deposit for contractual performance, and franchise expenses and educational expenses).

The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company entered into an Rotterdam contract with the amount of KRW 94,69,00, and the amount of equipment and facilities cost of KRW 53,453,620, and paid KRW 171,592,620, including the above franchise deposit, to the account requested by the Defendant Company by May 14, 2015.

E. On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff served a notice upon the Defendant Company demanding the return of the full amount of expenses invested in order to operate the instant franchise store on the grounds of the Defendant Company’s failure to provide prior information and the provision of false exaggerated information. On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant franchise agreement during the course of the instant lawsuit and reached the Defendant Company around that time, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant franchise store’s business on November 30, 2015.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 1, 4 through 7, 20 (including paper numbers), substantial facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties is legitimate in the instant franchise agreement.