1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, since the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Therefore, as asserted by the Plaintiff, as to whether the Defendant did not leave the store of this case until February 15, 2012 and did not comply with the Plaintiff’s promise, even if all of the entries in Gap, Gap’s evidence Nos. 7 through 9 (including the provisional number), and witness I’s testimony and witness G’s testimony at the court of first instance, it is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without having to examine other points.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the term “retirement point” as agreed by the Defendant refers to the Plaintiff’s creation of a condition in which the Plaintiff can conduct business by promptly selling its store. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant failed to perform the said meaning’s “retirement point” promise (the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the previous business operator shows that the store was empty and then the business operator would be changed to the management office, and then the previous business operator and the subsequent business operator explain that the change of the store would be changed to the management office, and that the previous business operator should undergo the process of paying settlement and management deposit, etc. of the management fee). This is contrary to the ordinary meaning of the language of “retirement point”, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff promised to leave” in the instant store as alleged by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, regardless of whether the Plaintiff received the name of the store in this case.

The defendant stated above.