1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall consist of a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “In accordance with this case’s consent,” which will be the 6th second of the 6th judgment of the first instance; “the text” which will be reduced to 3th below the 6th judgment as “the purport of the original claim”; and “the purport of the first instance judgment” is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the appellate trial under paragraph (2) below. Thus, this is cited pursuant to the main

2. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the appellate trial as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of nonperformance (violation of the duty to guarantee the right to sell area) under Article 7 of the contract of this case, the Plaintiff infringed the Plaintiff’s right to sell area by newly establishing a franchise store in an area adjacent to the Plaintiff’s franchise store under the premise that the main sentence of Article 7 of the contract of this case is null and void. Preliminaryly, even if the main sentence of Article 7 of the contract of this case is valid due to the proviso of Article 7 of the contract of this case, the Defendant did not perform the duty of care to prevent damage to the Plaintiff’s business efforts by giving priority to the Plaintiff during the process of establishing a franchise store, improving the old facilities of the Plaintiff’s store, or granting subsidies to the expected sales price. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not fulfill its duty to pay due care to the Plaintiff’s

On the other hand, the first instance judgment cited earlier that the main text of Article 7 of the contract of this case cannot be deemed null and void as a provision that has lost fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith or a provision that restricts essential rights pursuant to the contract to the extent that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved. The proviso of Article 7 of the contract of this case provides that the defendant shall be given due care to the defendant so that the plaintiff's business effort is not damaged, but only that provision shall be considered to the defendant.