1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Under the underlying facts, facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence 2, 5, and Eul evidence 1 to 5.

On September 22, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with the Defendant, a franchisor of “365 Plus convenience store” (hereinafter “instant store”) on “365 Plus convenience store B” (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”).

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the special subsidy of KRW 44 million, including the lump-sum subsidy, but if the instant franchise agreement is terminated and the Plaintiff suspends its business, the Plaintiff agreed to calculate the contract period for the said lump-sum subsidy and return the amount equivalent to the remaining period from the earlier termination date to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subsidy agreement”). C.

On September 25, 2015, pursuant to the instant franchise agreement, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,770,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, excluding the product reserve, out of the franchise investment expenses, to the Defendant. On October 6, 2015, the Defendant deposited 44,000,000

On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the termination of the instant franchise agreement. On October 13, 2015, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 33,300,000,000, which offsets the Plaintiff’s deposit of KRW 10,770,000, out of the amount of lump-sum subsidy 44,000,000,000,000 won, and (2) notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation amount under Article 10(2) of

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case was terminated because the plaintiff signed the contract of this case with the birth of the birth of the birth of the birth of the birth of the birth of the birth of the plaintiff, and if the defendant paid considerable attention to the business, the termination of the contract of this case was caused by the defendant's gross negligence in the business, and therefore, 3.