1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount constitutes an additional payment order.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the “written” of the first instance judgment No. 15 was cited as “written” (hereinafter “written agreement”); and (b) the same as the re-written of the first instance judgment as the grounds for the first instance judgment, except for the following additions at the last parallels in the four-party four-party net boxes; and (c) thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Article 3 (Other) ① When the plaintiff and the defendant implement this agreement, they shall not raise any and all issues, such as reporting to the Fair Trade Commission and administrative civil petitions, with respect to the dispute in this case.

Article 4 (Confirmation of Termination of Dispute) (1) The plaintiff shall request the defendant to terminate the mediation procedure in this case, which has been applied to the Franchise Business Dispute Mediation Council.

2. Where the contents of this Agreement are not complied with, the other parties to the agreement may claim compensation for the non-compliance and non-compliance with the demands of the parties to the agreement.

“”

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. On April 30, 2018, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant on the instant dispute mediation procedure by the Fair Trade Mediation Council of the Franchise Business Transaction Dispute Mediation Council, and agreed with the Defendant to not present any issues if the agreement is implemented, and thereafter, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit in the instant case was in violation of the above subordinate litigation agreement.

B. Determination 1) Disagreements giving rise to the effect of a serious litigation law, such as waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution, and as such, the parties’ assertion on interpretation of the intent is unclear in interpreting the intent of the parties, depending on the existence or judgment of the agreement, with respect to procedural acts in which interests between the parties are extreme.