2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant, as a company aimed at asbestos removal business, wholesale and retail business, etc., used land C, D, and E from Pakistan to a scrap metal business site (hereinafter “instant business site”), transferred the instant business site to the Plaintiff at KRW 5,00,000,000, including deposit KRW 15,000,000, around October 2012.

B. On January 31, 2013, the Defendant transferred the head office to B in the case of Pakistan, which is the neighboring area of the instant business establishment.

C. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the wholesale and retail business registration for recycled raw material recycling ingredients in the name of “G” at the instant place of business.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The cause of the claim (the Plaintiff’s assertion) is that the Defendant, at the time of the transfer of the instant workplace, promised to hand over the business place to the Plaintiff, but did not comply with such promise and continues to conduct the same business in an adjacent area after the transfer of the business, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,00

In addition, the defendant filed a claim to suspend the business in the case where the business is relocated.

3. As to whether the Plaintiff had to take over business including business partners, telephone numbers, trade names, etc. from the Defendant, in light of the fact that the Defendant was a corporation and the Plaintiff had already completed business registration with trade name unrelated to the Defendant’s trade name, etc., it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff solely based on the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 9-11 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant bears the duty of prohibition of competitive business as a transferor of business pursuant to Article 41 of the Commercial Act is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.