1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the building located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant building”); Plaintiff B, as Plaintiff’s children, entered into a franchise agreement with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on April 5, 2010, and operated “F store” (hereinafter “instant store”) on the first and second floors of the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with Defendant D on behalf of the Plaintiff, setting the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,300,00 (value-added tax separate), from March 15, 2016 to March 14, 2018, under which the instant building was leased to Defendant D (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On the same day, Plaintiff B entered into a contract with Defendant D to transfer the right to the instant franchise amount of KRW 122,498,00 (hereinafter “instant franchise transfer agreement”).

C. Meanwhile, from March 15, 2016, Defendant D operated the instant franchise store at the instant store from March 15, 2016, and on February 7, 2017, Defendant D moved the instant franchise store to the first floor of the building located in Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence No. 10, the video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim (claim for Damages based on Non-performance of Obligations)

A. The Defendants asserted that the instant store was agreed upon by the Plaintiffs at the time of concluding the instant franchise transfer agreement with the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

However, while operating the instant franchise store, the Defendants did not provide new ice with the instant store, and Defendant D arbitrarily transferred the instant franchise store even though the lease term of the instant lease agreement was not terminated.

Therefore, the Defendants are therefore.