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 reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the evidence additionally submitted to this court is insufficient to reverse the fact-finding stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant's new argument is added in addition to adding the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the new argument in this Court

A. On the premise that the Plaintiff’s instant claim is not a claim for the agreed amount, but a claim for the return of a franchise fee upon the termination of the franchise agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and C, the Defendant asserts that C fulfilled its duty under the franchise agreement, but the Plaintiff failed to fulfill its duty to pay the franchise fee according to the franchise agreement, etc., so the Plaintiff cannot terminate the said franchise agreement and

The plaintiff's claim of this case is not a claim for the agreed amount under the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and a claim for the return of franchise fees according to the cancellation of the franchise agreement entered into between the plaintiff and C. Thus, the prior defendant's claim on a different premise is without merit without further review.

(2) The plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be asserted on the ground that the defendant's individual is not the defendant's representative director, and the defendant is not the defendant's representative director.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since the plaintiff did not operate the Franchis conscientiously after preparing the letter of performance assurance of this case.

However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was not in a good faith operating of the F Points, and there is no evidence to deem that such circumstance constitutes a legitimate ground for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.