beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance cited in the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the defendant's new argument in the trial of the court of the first instance. Thus, it is cited
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The Defendant, upon the change of circumstances, set the term of the instant contract as about four months and added three months from the perspective of ordinary people, and thus, the instant contract should be terminated as a matter of course in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s expression of intent of termination by the content certification of April 20, 2017 is legitimate as termination due to a significant change of circumstances. 2) In the instant contract, the term of the instant contract is set as the open date in the form of the instant case, and the said open date may be adjusted through consultation with the Plaintiff. As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the development period of the instant contract by May 15, 2017, it is difficult to deem that the extension of the term of the instant contract constitutes a significant change of circumstances that could not have been predicted at all.
3) Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit without further review. (B) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s expression of termination by the content certification of April 20, 2017 is legitimate as the termination following the Plaintiff’s refusal of performance, on the ground that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent of refusal to refuse the contract of this case where the Plaintiff did not extend the term of the contract of this case on March 21, 2017, the current status of the progress of the project of March 29, 2017, and future franchises.
2. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s provisional suspension of service performance on March 15, 2017 to the Plaintiff.