1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff engaging in the franchise business of “C” entered into a franchise store agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant franchise store agreement”). On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise store agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant franchise store agreement”), and the contract clause only indicates “Article 0(0).” The Defendant is operating a restaurant that sells the net world in the name of “D’s C promotion store” from that time to that time.

B. However, on July 22, 2016, the Defendant, on the ground of the Plaintiff’s loss of service mark and business mark, declared the termination of the instant franchise store agreement and continued to engage in restaurant business in the same trade name.

C. However, the Defendant violated the termination procedure under Article 34 (the need to give notice of termination two months prior to the termination) without any grounds for termination under the instant franchise store contract, and is currently running the restaurant business, thereby violating the obligation of prohibition of competition under Article 29.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the sum of damages and penalty for breach of contract under Article 36.

(A) According to Article 36, the penalty for breach of the termination procedure under Article 34 is KRW 30 million, and the penalty for breach of the duty to prohibit competition under Article 29 is KRW 20 million, and the sum of the penalty is KRW 50 million, or the Plaintiff claims KRW 30 million among them. Thus, it is deemed that the penalty for breach of the duty to prevent competition under Article 34 is claimed KRW 18 million and the agreed amount is KRW 12 million according to the ratio of the penalty for breach to KRW 50 million).2.

A. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings in video.

1. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff consented to the use of D’s film pictures, pictures, images, etc. on the signboards of newspapers, broadcasting, Internet homepage, and chain stores for the Plaintiff’s promotion of C, with the content that the Plaintiff consented to the use of D’s film pictures, pictures, images, etc. on the signboards of newspapers, broadcasting, Internet homepages, and chain stores. The period of time shall be one year after the completion of the shooting, and the