1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant B’s KRW 46,221,633 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) First, Defendant B cannot arbitrarily terminate the instant franchise agreement, and the said agreement remains effective until the date of termination of the agreement. Defendant B bears the duty of prohibition of competition in accordance with the instant franchise agreement. Nevertheless, Defendant B actually terminated the franchise agreement in violation of it and operates Defendant C in the name of the Defendant C. Therefore, Defendant B is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million as penalty for breach of the obligation of prohibition of competition, KRW 46,221,63 in total, KRW 66,221,633 in total, as damages under Article 4 of the instant franchise agreement terms and conditions of the instant franchise agreement, and its delay damages. The Defendants are obligated to discontinue the instant franchise agreement. 2) Preliminaryly, the instant franchise agreement was terminated by Defendant B’s voluntary termination.

Therefore, Defendant B should pay the Plaintiff KRW 46,221,633 as damages in accordance with Article 4 of the Special Agreement.

In addition, Defendant B violated the Plaintiff’s trade secrets and operated E, and thus, Defendant B should pay the sum of KRW 26,221,633 and delay damages.

B. The Plaintiff asserted by the Defendants violated the obligations under the instant franchise agreement, such as supplying long-term swine machine to Defendant B, demanding large cooperation.

Accordingly, Defendant B notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant franchise agreement on September 2015, changed F’s trade name to E and transferred E stores to Defendant C.

As the plaintiff's assertion, Defendant B does not operate E in the name of Defendant C.

3. Determination

A. As to the termination of the instant franchise agreement, the statement Nos. 1 and 7 Nos. 1 and 7 and the fact-finding inquiry inquiry about the city of Kimhae set forth by the Plaintiff in the instant franchise agreement.