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 contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion at the trial of the first instance do not differ significantly from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion at the trial of the first instance. However, even if examining the Plaintiff’s assertion together with the evidence submitted at the trial of the first instance and the first instance court, the fact-finding and determination by the first instance court on the Plaintiff’s claim for damages

Therefore, the reasoning for the judgment on this case is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the claim for damages and the claim for refund of franchise fees) except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Under the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, two parts of the "Franchising Business Act" in Article 37-2 of the Franchising Business Act are liable for damages under Article 37-2 of the Franchising Business Act against the defendant on the ground that the defendant violated Articles 7 and 9 of the Franchising Business Act.

However, Article 37-2 of the Franchise Business Act is a provision newly established by the Franchise Business Act as amended by Act No. 14812, Apr. 18, 2017, and Articles 1 and 3 of the Addenda (Act No. 14812, Apr. 18, 2017) of the former Act on Fair Transactions in Franchise Business, and Article 37-2 of the same Act applies from the first claim for damages where a franchisor first caused damage to a franchisee, in violation of Articles 9(1) and 12(1)1 of the same Act after the enforcement date thereof, and the claim for damages arising from the violation of the Franchise Business Act that the Plaintiff sought is related to damages arising from July 18, 2017 or around August 8, 2017, and thus, Article 37-2 of the same Act cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages under this part of the former Franchise Business Act pursuant to Article 537(1)37 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 184, Apr. 18, 2017).