1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the court of first instance adds the following contents to the judgment of the court of first instance or presents some contents of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it

Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance is added to the following:

In light of the contents and purport of the Franchise Business Act as above, a franchisor is obliged to pay a prospective franchisee an objective and accurate duty of care to provide objective and accurate information. Thus, if the information on expected profits that a franchisor has notified a prospective franchisee is not presented in an objective and accurate manner based on the factual basis and data, it is reasonable to deem that a franchisor has breached the above duty of care."

In accordance with Article 9(1) of the Franchise Business Act, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant violated the above duty of care by providing an exaggerated information not supported by a factual basis or objective data concerning anticipated sales and profit-making in spite of the Plaintiff’s duty of care not to provide false or exaggerated information on franchise business pursuant to Article 9(1) of the franchise business Act at the time of entering into the instant contract with the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff.”

C. The court is recognized as having incurred damage in a claim for damages due to a tort, the scope of liability for damages, but it is extremely difficult to prove the specific amount of damage due to the nature of the case.