1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for franchise business, Chinese food manufacturing and sales business, which grants franchisees a franchise license in relation to a franchise agreement.

B. After entering into the franchise agreement with the Plaintiff on September 15, 201, the Defendant entered into the franchise agreement every year with the Plaintiff as a franchisee who has been granted the franchise license from the Plaintiff, and entered into the franchise agreement every year in the operation of the D Leecheon-si C and 103 (hereinafter “instant business place”). The franchise agreement entered into on September 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) includes the details of the attached franchise agreement.

C. (1) On August 13, 2013, and October 3, 2013, the Plaintiff’s visit inspection of each of the instant franchise stores revealed the country of origin mark, etc., and as to this, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant in writing that the instant contract may be terminated at the time of the Defendant’s breach of the instant contract and the failure to correct the instant contract.

B. The Plaintiff’s visit inspection of the instant franchise store conducted on February 25, 2014 also pointed out the indication of the origin of the relevant ancient belt. On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document stating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant contract, and the said document was served to the Defendant on March 6, 2014.

Even after March 15, 2014, the Defendant continues to conduct the business at the place of business of this case.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on charges of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, etc. regarding the foregoing business, but the Prosecutor of the branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office rendered a disposition of unwritten evidence (defluence of evidence) on July 30, 2014, and thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2014 early 5214) regarding the legitimacy of the disposition of non-prosecution.