1. The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant B shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's primary defendant.

1. Under the premise that Defendant B is the party to the instant branch contract, the Plaintiff is the primary party to the instant branch contract, the Plaintiff filed the instant claim under the premise that Defendant C is the party to the said branch contract.

It is recognized that there is a subjective and preliminary co-litigation relationship that cannot be legally compatible and the need for its unity is recognized, so Defendant B filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court.

Even if the part of the claim against the conjunctive defendant C is also excluded from the confirmation, and it is transferred to the appellate court and is subject to the judgment of this court.

However, it is reasonable to view that the conjunctive Defendant C is in the position of “party to the appellate trial” who did not appeal without filing an appeal.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to Defendant B was made with Defendant B’s branch contract (hereinafter “instant branch contract”) on October 12, 2010, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,800,000 in total as the franchise fee and goods price pursuant to the branch contract with Defendant B, and Defendant B did not provide reading materials and Pamplet at all. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of KRW 25,80,000, total franchise fee and goods price paid by the Plaintiff through service of the instant complaint, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of KRW 25,80,000, and delayed payment damages. In full view of the purport of the arguments as indicated in subparagraphs 1 through 4, the Plaintiff concluded a branch contract with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant branch contract”), and it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,800,000 in total as the franchise fee and goods cost pursuant to the branch

However, in order to cancel the instant branch contract on the ground of Defendant B’s nonperformance, the Plaintiff must prove that Defendant B failed to perform the obligations under the instant branch contract, but it is not sufficient to recognize the same merely with the entries in Articles 5, 6, and 7. There is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may claim the rescission of the instant branch contract on the grounds of the delay of the performance of Defendant B.