1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, with a exception to the provision of partial contents as follows.

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The second half and fourth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance include “store operated by the defendant” as “store operated by the defendant and the defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the defendant et al.”)”, “the defendant’s store operated by the defendant,” “the defendant’s store” of 3th 10 to 11th, “the defendant’s store” of 4th and 4th below, respectively, “the defendant’s store” as “the store operated by the defendant et al.”.

The two pages of the judgment of the first instance and three to two pages “(hereinafter referred to as “instant goods”)” (hereinafter referred to as “instant goods”) were all referred to as “instant goods” (hereinafter referred to as “instant goods”).

The fifth and fifth concepts of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as a concept, "as a special agreement purchase transaction," and all "specified special agreement purchase transaction" shall be used as "purchase transaction under special agreement," according to the examples of the Large Franchise and Retail Business Act.

The 6th 12th 16th 16th 2th 16th 16th 10 of the first instance judgment " above-mentioned:

In light of these circumstances, from 2007 to 2009, the Defendant would be deemed to have purchased the instant goods at the Defendant’s store operated by the Plaintiff when the instant goods were supplied by the Plaintiff and sold at the Defendant’s store, and the remainder after deducting certain sales proceeds from the sales proceeds at a certain period of time would have been settled on the Plaintiff.

In addition, there is no big difference between the purchase transaction under a special agreement and its economic aspect in that the Plaintiff bears a burden on the remaining after deducting sales proceeds from the sales proceeds of the instant product sales proceeds, as well as on the remaining stocks not sold.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant traded from 2007 to 2009 in a form similar to the purchase transaction under a special contract, and thereafter, the special contract purchase transaction is made.