1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the defendant's argument in the court of first instance except for the following additional arguments, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is acknowledged as legitimate even if the defendant's testimony in the court of first instance 3 through 7, 10, 11 (including the case where there is a serial number), and witness G of the court of first instance submitted by the defendant in the court of first instance,

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the second 11th 11st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 200

2. The Defendant asserts that since the Plaintiff did not operate “N” and “O” around the end of November 2014 and did not manage D and C franchise business sites at all, the Defendant is unable to pay subsidies to the Plaintiff from the end of November 2014, since the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated on or after the end of November 2014.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 8-2 through 5, Eul evidence No. 8-2, Eul evidence No. 9, the defendant entered into a transaction agreement and equipment leasing agreement with some of the plaintiff's franchise stores around February 2015, and from March 2016, it can be recognized that the defendant paid subsidies to the plaintiff's franchise business site. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff still is a franchise business operator who operates C and D brand, the plaintiff's franchise owner who entered into a transaction agreement and equipment leasing agreement is limited to part of the plaintiff's franchise owner who entered into a contract, and the defendant's payment of subsidies was one year after the end of November 2014, and the defendant continues to supply alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff's franchise site before and after the above agreement, regardless of the above transaction agreement and equipment leasing agreement, around February 2, 2015, the date on which the above transaction agreement was concluded, and around February 2, 2015.