1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6.

(1) Around April 27, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the former trade name: Le Lloson Co., Ltd.) concluded a master franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) with which the Defendant can operate stores using the Plaintiff’s brand and system by determining a certain area.

(2) After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued the instant contract, and the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the royalties and the cost of goods from December 2, 2012 to February 2, 2014.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 92,455,784 won, such as the amount of goods unpaid, to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of set-off

A. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including virtual numbers), the Plaintiff, according to the instant contract, did not pay the Defendant the sum of KRW 132 million (including value-added tax) and KRW 187 million in total, in 2012 and 2013, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the facts established above, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall have a counterclaim against the Plaintiff, such as the franchise store fee, KRW 187 million.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff should open at least 10 stores to the contract area according to the minimum number of stores stipulated in Article 12 of the instant contract, but violated this, and the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant contract as of April 26, 2012, and thus, the royalty and franchise store fee generated thereafter cannot be offset against the automatic bond.