2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

2.(b)

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding the Defendants’ assertion regarding “2” is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Defendants asserted that (1) the Defendants, while engaging in the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s “D” franchise business in 2015, he/she instead conducts business, such as recruiting a franchise store without wage or activity expenses, and instead, the Plaintiff exempted the interest on the above loans and deducted the amount of franchise and education expenses from the leased principal.

(2) However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff exempted the interest on the above loans in return for Defendant B’s franchise store business in return for Defendant B’s franchise store business, and deducted the amount of the franchise expenses and educational expenses from the leased principal. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

[M] According to Gap evidence No. 2 (Evidence), the plaintiff, on October 22, 2015, adjusted the total loans to KRW 180 million and clearly stated the interest at KRW 18%. (B) The defendants, on behalf of the plaintiff, transferred KRW 36.5 million to the plaintiff's prior owner of the plaintiff, KRW 30 million on behalf of the plaintiff, and again requested the plaintiff and transferred part of the loans to G during November 2015. ② On June 30, 2016, the plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to H Co., Ltd. with the representative director, and KRW 50,000,000 to the plaintiff's prior owner of the plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27517, Jun. 1, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27051, Jun. 26, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27070, Mar. 16, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 27065, Jun. 201, 20000, Mar. 15, 20000.