1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit, and appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion that was used by the court or that the defendant emphasized or added by the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is written after the dismissal, "The second part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (the fourth below 10th below)" (the part that "the judgment of this case was concluded by the plaintiff's deception", "the plaintiff deceivings the defendant about the expenses of interior works and collection of office, etc., and the defendant, who is erroneous, entered into the construction contract of this case with the plaintiff."

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is 2-B.

2) Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the part of paragraph (5) (from the second to the third above, the second to the third above) shall be divided as follows: (2) Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the portion of the franchise cost of KRW 10 million and the royalties of KRW 2.4 million on July 2017 shall be examined as to the portion of the franchise cost of KRW 2.4 million.

Basic Facts

In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the following facts are stated as KRW 10 million per annum in the item of the instant quotation and the franchise fee item of the instant final quotation, and it is recognized that the defendant conducted the business of operating approximately one month from July 8, 2017 to August 2, 2017 after the completion of the interior work of this case.

However, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence 5 and 6, namely, ① the defendant entered into only the interior contract of this case with the original defendant in a separate document after receiving the final estimate of this case, and the plaintiff did not separately prepare the franchise membership contract. However, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not prepare the franchise membership contract in the name of the wife H et al., and the franchise membership contract was not prepared. However, the documents submitted in consideration of the circumstances described in the above (2) and (3) are alone.