1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant to operate the Kapete Points (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the contract performance guarantee, educational expenses, construction expenses, etc. to the Defendant according to the instant franchise store agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's defense is restitution following the cancellation of the franchise agreement of this case against the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim for the remainder of KRW 31,204,000 after deducting the construction cost from the amount of KRW 80,000,000 paid to the defendant under the franchise agreement of this case, and damages for delay from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case (hereinafter "claim of this case"), the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim of this case was unlawful since the plaintiff's creditor received the attachment collection order concerning the claim of this case. Thus,

B. If a seizure and collection order is issued for the judgment claim, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the following facts: (a) as to each of the claims stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 200; and (b) as to each of the claims described in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 2000; and (c) as to each of the claims described in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 2000; and (d) as to each of the claims described in the evidence Nos. 2013 through 11812, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013 through 2896, 276, 200 won; and (e) as to each of the claims described in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3,530,674 won, the Defendant, who is the garnishee, was served on the Defendant.

Therefore, since each of the above collection amounts exceeds the plaintiff's claim amount, the plaintiff shall claim of this case.