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. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are used in part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. In addition to the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to "paragraph 3", the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On April 1, 2013, the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The Plaintiff’s branch office affiliated with the Defendant” in Section 12 of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The Plaintiff shall conclude an agreement on the agreement between the Defendant and the branch office (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and an agreement on the branch office (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and shall read “B branch office affiliated with the Defendant.”

B. Article 11 of the 5th trial decision of the first instance court stated that “The instant resolution is null and void because it violates the agreement on the head of the branch office,” and that “the instant resolution is null and void as it violates the instant agreement.”

C. Article 17-22 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides the following parts:

【Evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2 (hereinafter “instant plan”) as seen earlier

With respect to the instant plan, the Plaintiff acknowledged the authenticity through the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief as of May 10, 2017, which was the date for the second pleading of May 11, 2017, which was the date for pleading of this Court. However, the Plaintiff revoked it through the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief as of August 4, 2017, which was stated on August 24, 2017, which was the date for fourth pleading of the instant court. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s establishment of the authenticity as to the said plan was contrary to the truth and due to mistake solely based on the description as to the evidence No. 25 and the testimony as to the witness E of this court, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the revocation is not effective.

Even if it is assumed that the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s confession as to the authenticity of the instant plan may be recognized, the Plaintiff’s confession.