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

The defendant shall pay 3,300,000 won to the plaintiff and shall also pay 3,30,000 won to the plaintiff on December 2015.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The grounds for this part of the allegations by the parties are the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. First of all, we examine whether the instant franchise agreement was terminated on December 19, 2014, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in determining whether the instant franchise agreement was terminated.

Article 6 (4) of the franchise agreement of this case provides for the following:

If Party A (the plaintiff) fails to notify the refusal under paragraph (1) or to notify in writing that Party B (the defendant) would not renew the franchise agreement during the period from 180 to 90 days before the expiration of the franchise agreement, it shall be deemed that the agreement has been automatically renewed for five years.

Provided, That this shall not apply where a franchisee raises an objection 60 days prior to the expiration date of the contract or there is a ground for termination of the contract to Gap or Eul.

However, there is no other evidence to deem that the Plaintiff notified that the instant franchise agreement was not renewed, and the instant franchise agreement was automatically renewed for five years from December 19, 2014.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared the instant written confirmation as seen earlier on January 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s place of business of the Defendant’s franchise store was closed around April 3, 2015, and thus, the instant franchise agreement is determined to be terminated on April 3, 2015, which is the closing date of the franchise store as specified in the instant written confirmation.

Therefore, the purport of the instant franchise agreement was that the Plaintiff’s trademark was used without permission until April 3, 2015 upon the termination of December 19, 2014.