1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The service contract that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded on February 13, 2012 is called.

In accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 6 through Chapter 6 of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the judgment of the first instance shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence.

(1) Article 17 of the instant service agreement provides that the Defendant may terminate the instant service agreement if the Plaintiff fails to perform its obligations under the instant service agreement for at least three days due to the Plaintiff’s fault. However, the Plaintiff failed to perform its obligations under the instant service agreement for a total of six days from November 5, 2012 and from November 22 to 26, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s fault, and the Defendant sent a notice to the Plaintiff on the 26th day of the same month that the instant service agreement was terminated and delivered to the Plaintiff around that time. As seen earlier, the instant service agreement was lawfully terminated.

I would like to say.

As to this, the Plaintiff did not go through such procedures even though the Defendant had notified in writing two months prior to the termination of the instant service contract. ② The Plaintiff delayed the transportation of food waste under the instant service contract for only three days, and subsequently disposed of all lasts, and accordingly, the Defendant’s rescission of the instant service contract constitutes a violation of the good faith principle or an abuse of rights.

First of all, according to the above argument No. 2, Article 18 of the service contract of this case cannot be cancelled until three months elapse from the contract date, but it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff must notify the defendant in writing at least two months prior to the cancellation of the service contract of this case. This is not the defendant, but the requirements for the case where the plaintiff cancels the service contract of this case. Thus, there is no reason to apply this to the defendant.

Then, the above-mentioned argument.