1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases where a part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Parts 4, 16, 16, and 5, of the first instance judgment shall be written in the following manner:

2) After formulating the instant agreement, the Defendant’s assertion continuously obstructed the Defendant’s business in violation of Article 3 of the said agreement, and the Defendant deposited the development fund under the instant agreement on several occasions on the part of the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs did not comply with the demand of the Plaintiffs to perform the duty of prohibition of business obstruction.

Accordingly, around August 2012, the Defendant rescinded the Convention on July 3, 2006 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant Convention”) on the ground of nonperformance of the obligation of the Plaintiffs, such as incomplete performance or non-performance of the obligation of the Plaintiffs under the instant Convention.

In addition, after the preparation of the instant agreement, the Plaintiffs continued to interfere with the Defendant’s business and did not claim for the development fund, etc. under the instant agreement to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not proceed with any consultation on the instant agreement with the Plaintiffs on the ground that the instant agreement was reversed after August 2012, and accordingly, the instant agreement was implicitly rescinded.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case based on the premise that the agreement of this case remains valid is without merit.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Article 11-13 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that “The content of the bilateral contract is either a condition or a consideration for the Defendant to obtain permission for business expansion and to cooperate in continuing business performance.”