1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reason why the court stated this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in the summary under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main argument

A. The facts of the judgment of the court of first instance in relation to the supply of convenience stores by the plaintiff and the defendant on the main point of the plaintiffs' primary assertion

1.(b)

transaction described in subsection (1), hereinafter referred to as “instant transaction”).

() At the beginning of the contract, the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder after deducting only 10% of the total amount from the Defendant’s profits from the Defendant’s convenience store (including value-added tax). The parties to the agreement agreed to pay the Plaintiff the remainder to the Plaintiff. The sum of the payments that the Defendant received from convenience store companies from 2006 to December 2012, including value-added tax, was KRW 9,226,748,221, and the Defendants should have paid KRW 8,304,073,397,6360 among them. Accordingly, the Defendants should have jointly paid KRW 7,549,915,762 won (=8,304,307,379,397, 397, and 6360,000,000 won). Accordingly, the Defendants jointly agreed to pay the remainder of the settlement amount to the Plaintiffs, i.e., the Defendants’ obligation to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiffs.

2) From January 2013 to December 2012, the Defendant’s side calculated the Defendant’s side profit (10% until December 2010; 7% thereafter; and paid the remainder after deducting it to the Plaintiff based on the “amount of value-added tax received from the convenience store company”. However, from January 2013, the entire amount of value-added tax received from the convenience store company is included.