1. The Defendant’s obligation to be paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the termination of the set- range B with the Defendant is KRW 38,903,855.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around May 2008, Nonparty C entered into a franchise agreement with the Defendant on the store development range B for five (5) years from the date of store acquisition.

B. On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff received the instant contract from the Defendant and operated the instant contract, and the term of the contract was set up on October 26, 2012 - May 27, 2013 (seven months) and operated convenience stores after entering into a franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. Around June 2013, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a franchise insurance policy issued by the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. as of May 28, 2013, which was the insurance period of 60,000,000,000, and the insurance period of 28, 2013.

On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate that the franchise contract is terminated, but continued to operate the convenience store until December 24, 2013.

E. Around December 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with E and convenience store in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

F. On March 19, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant contract will be terminated.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, and 4]

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. On May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the instant contract was concluded and, despite the absence of the money to be paid to the Defendant, the Defendant claimed insurance money with the Defendant incurred losses equivalent to the attached Form due to the termination of the convenience store contract in Seoul Guarantee Insurance. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was brought about in order to obtain confirmation that the Defendant was not liable.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff unilaterally ceased to conduct business until December 24, 2013, and (b) the Defendant unilaterally ceased to conduct business for at least seven days; and (c) the Defendant terminated the instant contract on March 19, 2014, and subsequently became entitled to claim the following damages.

(1) Article 55(1)(j) of the instant contract with the Plaintiff was terminated as the contract was terminated under Article 55(1)(j).