2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

However, following the 9th page of the judgment of the first instance, “The plaintiff asserts that it is a penalty for breach of contract on the legal nature of additional charges for delay of transfer.” As penalty is presumed to be liquidated damages pursuant to Article 398(4) of the Civil Act, special circumstances should be asserted and proved in order to interpret the penalty as a penalty for breach of contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da259769, Nov. 29, 2017). (1) The attached Table 26(2)(7) of the instant franchise agreement states “the method of calculating a delayed penalty” rather than the penalty for breach of contract, and (2) states “the penalty for delay of transfer” as “the penalty for breach of contract” in the instant agreement, and (3) stipulates that the purpose of securing the Plaintiff’s smooth operation of the Plaintiff’s franchise business based on the penalty for breach of contract is to separately claim damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da163160, Nov. 26, 2016).

2. The decision of the court of first instance is justifiable.

All appeals filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.