1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 34,592,926.

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the franchise store business with the trade name of “D Language Research Institute”.

B. G between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s birth, as the motive for high school, was the Plaintiff’s introduction to work as an instructor at around 2014, and around January 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant expressed their intent to enter into a franchise agreement with the Plaintiff and to operate 5 points (hereinafter “the instant fish driving school”).

C. On April 16, 2015, the Defendant completed the business registration of the instant fish farming institute under its own name, and around July 2016, the Defendant changed the parties to the instant franchise agreement from the Defendant to E, the father of the Defendant.

On October 18, 2016, the Defendant prepared and issued a certificate of termination of the franchise agreement (hereinafter “certificate of termination of this case”) stating that “The Defendant himself, who entered into a contract from the Plaintiff on January 23, 2015 by the franchise agreement, prepares a written confirmation to verify the termination of the contract pursuant to Article 10 subparag. 1 of the Agreement due to personal circumstances, etc.” to the Plaintiff, but continued to be supplied with teaching materials, etc. from the Plaintiff even after the issuance thereof.

E. On the other hand, on January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content stating that “The instant franchise agreement was terminated as of October 18, 2016, and thus, the Plaintiff shall not use the signboards, etc..). Accordingly, the Defendant, around January 2017, set the instant fish driving school signboard and did not use the Plaintiff’s trade name and teaching materials.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 6, G witness G of the trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with the Plaintiff on January 23, 2015, and the Defendant drafted the franchise agreement on the grounds that there is an insurance solicitor and is not the actual operator.