1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay 82,00,000 won to the plaintiff A and 20,000,000 won among them.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendant's assertion in the trial of the court of first instance added the judgment as follows 2, and the fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(d) Parts

4. The conclusion is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the conclusion as follows 3 and 4. As such, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) “H” operated by I is the franchise headquarters, and I concluded the instant restaurant after proposing the Defendant to operate the instant restaurant with the franchise franchise franchise franchise agreement. However, I did not provide support, such as management guidance, know-how transfer, and education, which are obligations of the franchisor according to the franchise franchise agreement. In addition, I attempted to transfer the instant restaurant to the Defendant by changing the instant restaurant into “E” only in the place of “H” store, which was in fact in its closure of business, and instead, I did not intend to perform its obligations under the instant restaurant franchise agreement, but did not provide the Defendant with any defense that the instant restaurant was supplied to the extent that he did not enter into a contract with the Defendant, on the ground that he did not know that there was a mutual change in the restaurant as above. However, I did not inform the Defendant of the fact that the instant restaurant was supplied without any justifiable reason, and thus, I did not provide any defense to the effect that the instant restaurant was supplied.

Judgment

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the nature of the sales contract for the instant restaurant, No. 3.