The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the claim of a principal lawsuit is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of paragraphs 2-A and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant his/her intent to cancel the instant franchise agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of his/her obligation as the instant complaint at the end of the sixth page, which added “the court of first instance” in the front of the 5th and 9th sentence to “an appraiser,” and this was served on August 9, 2017.

In addition, 7 pages 1 to 4 of the instant franchise agreement was subsequently dismissed on August 9, 2017, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant did not properly perform its contractual obligations, such as delayed construction of interior works and notifying the suspension of construction; and (b) the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant franchise agreement on the ground that the instant franchise agreement was lawfully rescinded.

On June 2, 2017, the Defendant asserts that the instant franchise agreement was terminated under the agreement with the Plaintiff.

According to Gap evidence No. 5-2, although the intention to terminate the contractual relationship between the original defendant on June 2, 2017 is recognized with the assent of all the parties, in this case, the legal relationship following the termination of the contract is important to the parties, such as the settlement of the construction cost and the price of goods, the settlement of defects, and the return of Lununununk, and there is no specific agreement on such legal relationship, thereby the termination of the agreement was established.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

At the end of the 8th 10 line, “A” was added to “A 22” and “the Plaintiff,” the 8th 18 to 19 p.m. was added to “A” to “the Plaintiff,” and the 9th 12 p.m. was added to “the first instance judgment.”