1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following amount ordering payment.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court should explain, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows from 4th to 6th 15th tier.

A. Whether the instant lease contract was terminated or not, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground that: (a) Defendant C was an exclusive sales item of the Plaintiff’s impliedly sold items under the instant lease agreement; (b) Defendant C was aware that the Plaintiff infringed upon the Plaintiff’s exclusive sales right under the instant lease agreement by entering it and allowing Defendant C to sell silently.

First, as to whether Defendant C guaranteed the Plaintiff the exclusive right to sell impliedly, it is necessary to obtain the lessor’s license to add the phrase “(5) of the instant lease agreement” to the following: (a) at the time the instant building, including the instant store, was leased to the Plaintiff, the Defendants set up items at each store, such as a dracker’s specialized store, Kim (b) specialized store, R/N specialized store, R/N specialized store, hinging, protruding, spinginginging, and sprinked store.

주품목: 튀김, 김밥, 어묵, 떡볶이, 주류 ’고 정하면서 ‘주류는 제한하지 않고 타 점포 주류 판매가능’으로 정함으로써 주류에 대해서만 예외를 인정한 사실, ③ 피고 C은 E에게 다른 점포를 임차할 당시 ‘이 사건 임대차계약 특약사항 제5항이 존재하므로, 절대로 원고 측과 같은 음식을 팔아서는 안 된다'고 고지한 사실은 당사자들 사이에 다툼이 없거나 갑 제1, 8호증의 각 기재에 의하여 인정되고, 위 인정사실을 종합하여 보면 피고 C은 원고에게 튀김, 김밥, 어묵, 떡볶이에 관한 독점 판매권을 보장한 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.

Next, Defendant C is the subject of this case.