A. The Defendant operated the beauty art room in the G of the building F located in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant beauty art room”).

B. On April 26, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired all kinds of facilities and goodwill, including the equipment, trade name, and customer, from the Defendant, including the beauty art room in the instant case, at KRW 24,000,000, and entered into a contract for the transfer of business (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of business”) with the content of purchasing the said building G No. 60,000,000 won.

B. On April 26, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 84,000,000 to the Defendant’s account. On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff operated the cosmetic up to the day after completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above building G.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Defendant transferred the cosmetic business of the instant case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the duty of prohibition of competitive business under Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act by operating “I beauty room” under the H’s name C and B of the second floor C and the second floor D.

Therefore, the defendant should not run the beauty room business of the same kind, which is the same business in Gyeongnam-gun, including the location of the above building, around the world. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages amounting to 27,000,000 won (=24,000,000 consolation money) and damages for delay.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the operator of the “I beauty room” is H, and the Defendant is merely an employee employed by H, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have breached the duty of prohibition of competitive business.

3. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. We examine the existence of the duty not to engage in the competitive business. On April 26, 2018, the Defendant entered into the instant business transfer agreement with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff continues to engage in the same business activity as the Defendant had been transferred from the Defendant under the said business transfer agreement.