All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Article 9(1) of the former Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act (amended by Act No. 12094, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter “Franchising Business Act”) provides that “No franchiser shall provide false or exaggerated information or omit important matters in providing prospective franchisees with information.” Article 41(1) of the same Act provides that “any person who provides false or exaggerated information or omits important matters in violation of Article 9(1) shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 150,000 won.” Article 4 of the same Act provides that “Franchising Business Parties shall perform their respective duties in good faith in running a franchise business.”

In full view of the relevant provisions of the Franchise Business Act, the term "in cases of omitting important matters under Article 9 (1) of the Franchise Business Act" means cases where it is evident in light of the empirical rule that if a prospective franchisee was notified of certain circumstances, he/she would have not concluded a franchise agreement if he/she would have received notification of such circumstances, he/she would not notify the prospective franchisee of such fact at the stage of consultation or consultation in order to enter into a franchise agreement.

In addition, these acts violate the obligation to provide information or obligation under Article 9(1) of the Franchise Business Act, and the franchisor is liable for damages to prospective franchisees under Article 37(3) of the Franchise Business Act and Article 56(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

B. The lower court acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.