1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The grounds for the ruling of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the ruling of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff operated the instant franchise store from November 19, 2015 to May 31, 2017; (b) as a result of continuing to record the enemy while operating the franchise store, the sum of KRW 39,518,458, and KRW 4,5034, and KRW 16,517,139, and KRW 18,497,855, and KRW 13,000,000,000 for losses in 2015, and KRW 4,503,50,000 for losses in 2016, KRW 16,517,139, and KRW 187,85,00 for losses in 20,000, KRW 13,14,000 for the first instance judgment.

2. The Plaintiff entered into the instant franchise agreement and operated the instant franchise store on the basis of false and exaggerated information, as stated in the first instance judgment cited in paragraph (1) prior to the amendment regarding the scope of liability for damages.

Therefore, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court that recognized the expenses incurred in the process of concluding the instant franchise agreement and preparing for the opening of the instant franchise store as ordinary damages caused by the instant tort is justifiable.

However, the part of the first instance judgment that held that business losses incurred in the course of operating the instant franchise store are not in proximate causal relation with the instant tort is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The summary of the judgment of the first instance court is that the Plaintiff did not conclude the instant franchise agreement if the Plaintiff was informed of accurate information about the expected sales and profits of the instant franchise store due to the lack of the instant illegal act, while the first instance court stated that the instant franchise agreement was not concluded.