채무부존재확인 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows. The Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court is identical to the description of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding “3. Additional Judgment” as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or added by this court. As such, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The 3rd through 8th of the first instance judgment (Article 1-5(e)) shall be applied to the parts that have been laid down or cut, as follows:
[1] On November 22, 201, D and E did not change the title holder of the instant franchise agreement from the Plaintiff to C within one month after opening the business. ② The convenience store of this case did not have installed cash payments and CCTV, ③ the correction of monthly settlement details and refusal to provide relevant data, and the cancellation of the instant franchise agreement in violation of the instant franchise agreement, such as loss and disposal, on the ground that D’s breach of the instant franchise agreement without C’s consent, 20,989,965 won, and 16,186,67 won, 3,151,100 won (i.e., 2,758,40 won installation cost, 392,70 won) were removed from the Seoul District Court, and the Seoul District Court’s final appeal was dismissed from 203,61,670 won, 206, 201, 3616, 206, 3616, 206, 2017.
On the other hand, among the complaint and brief of the instant lawsuit, the part on which C entered into the instant franchise agreement in the name of the Plaintiff is stated.