1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) filed in this Court against the Plaintiff.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff claimed the amount of KRW 30 million, first of all, out of the damages incurred to the Plaintiff on the ground of the Defendant’s violation of the franchise agreement or tort, as damages or restitution of unjust enrichment, and ② the sum of deposits under the additional franchise agreement, KRW 66 million, as restitution of the agreed amount or the rescission of the contract.

The court of the first instance declared that the above 66 million won among the above 66 million won was the amount of restitution following contract cancellation and the plaintiff's claim was accepted.

The only defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court.

In addition, the defendant filed a counterclaim in this court.

Accordingly, this court shall judge only the defendant's appeal and counterclaim.

2. Whether the counterclaim is lawful

A. The Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 135,276,021 as damages equivalent to the gains that the Defendant did not obtain, on account of the cancellation of the additional franchise agreement due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Defendant, of the penalty of KRW 30 million and the remaining goods of the distribution.

B. Counterclaim in an appellate trial may be lodged in cases where there is no possibility of undermining the interests of the other party in the instance pursuant to Article 412(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, or where consent of the other party is obtained. Here, “case where there is no possibility of undermining the interests of the other party in the instance” refers to the case where the substantial issue constituting the basis of a counterclaim claim is sufficiently examined by the first instance court in relation to the cause of the claim or method of defense of the principal lawsuit, and there is no concern that

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da77351, Dec. 8, 2011). In the instant case, the Plaintiff explicitly did not consent to the counterclaim by the Defendant’s court. The Plaintiff’s cause of claim in the first instance court was in breach of duty under the Defendant’s franchise agreement, and the Defendant’s defense method was not a cause attributable to the Defendant.

or the defendant shall return.