1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. As to this case, the reasoning of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the determination of the allegations made by the court or by the trial as follows, and thus, this part shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be cited shall be modified as follows: "The plaintiff's assertion and judgment" of Part 5, 3, and 8, not more than 6, 8, of the judgment of the

3. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to pay KRW 63 million to the Defendant, etc. at the time of trading the instant telecom “the instant telecom.” This is an indefinite period, not an additional condition.

Specifically, around June 2, 2014, C purchased or promised to sell and purchase the instant telecom with the Defendant, etc. and directly accept the instant telecom with the agreement on June 9, 2014, and through remodeling construction and consignment management until August 30, 2015.

However, C prepared a new agreement and the confirmation document of this case to cancel the pre-sale agreement concluded on November 30, 2015 because C was unable to sell and accept the instant telecom to a third party without having it purchased and sold the instant telecom, and settled the lease price incurred during the period of entrusted operation.

In other words, upon the preparation of the agreement on November 30, 2015 and the written confirmation of this case, C merely suspended the return of the lease amount disbursed by C during the entrusted operation period, and did not prepare for the purport that C would not receive the said lease amount and receive the payment if it was not sold or sold.

Therefore, the father of the confirmation document of this case had a considerable period of time from the time when the confirmation document was written, and the plaintiff or C intended to trade the franchise of this case.