The defendant.

The "Franchising Business Act" in the 17th parallel of 4 pages is amended by the former Franchise Business Act (Amended by Act No. 14135, Mar. 29, 2016).

2. The term “former Franchise Business Act” (hereinafter “former Franchise Business Act”).

(i) have been written in 10.0

2. The grounds for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written by the court.

6 One set of "1,98,213,936 won" shall be applied to "1,490,926,776 won".

1,50,000,000's portion of "2th 8-14th 1,500,000,000 for future gains shall be made as follows:

[2) Even according to the Defendant’s assertion of KRW 992,712,840, the term of the franchise agreement entered into by the Defendant with another franchisee is an ordinary two years. Thus, if the Plaintiff assumes that the term of the instant franchise agreement was two years instead of cancelling the instant franchise agreement, it should be deemed that the term of the contract at least two years could have been guaranteed.

If the Defendant had not infringed on the Defendant’s business area, the Plaintiff continued to engage in the instant franchise agreement and continued to engage in the business and continued to engage in the business for two years from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2019, 992,712,840 won (i.e., average profit 41,363,035 won x 24 months).

A person shall be appointed.

3. The reasoning for this part of the judgment is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the parts written by the court as follows.

8 4 parallels consisting of "89,587" with "589,123 persons".

The portion of “the amount of damages,” and “the amount of damages,” from 19 up to 14 pages, shall be as follows.