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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. From July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff operated as soon as possible the Plaintiff’s trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant soon as possible”) from July 1, 2013 to Kimhae-si Building 106.

B. From June 2016, the Defendant operated a mutual washing shop (hereinafter “E”) of “E” in subparagraph 107 of the same building immediately next to the instant promptly following the instant promptly following the instant order.

C. At the time of opening the instant laundry shop, the Defendant prepared the “agreement termination” with the Plaintiff as follows:

In the opening of the instant laundry store in Kimhae-si, it is deemed to be a clerical error of No. 105 No. 106 already operated in the previous time. In the case of causing interference with the instant laund, all responsibility would be held. 1) In the case of causing interference with the instant laund, the laundry traded with the instant laundry during the past (including F apartment G), which is adjacent to the instant laundry, is not all taken into account (laundry shall be held and operated as soon as possible unless

2) 2) The matters to be promptly permitted regarding the instant rapidly are operated in consultation with the instant washing store.

3) The above matters shall be held civil and criminal liability for any violation or other losses. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries of Gap Nos. 1, 4, and 5, Eul No. 1, Eul evidence No. 6, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not conduct business against the plaintiff at the time when the defendant opened a laundry store of this case, and promised to use the above 107 subparagraph only for the purpose of warehouse, so the plaintiff consented to the establishment of the laundry store of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff was permitted to establish the same type of business in the immediately next shop of this case from the lessor, and operated the business for the plaintiff and the customers who traded with the plaintiff. This led to the closure of the business by reducing the income of the laundry bank of this case.

Therefore, the defendant totaling KRW 16,417,00 and KRW 3,000,000, as well as the expenses for prompt future facilities in this case, such as wood construction costs, partitions installation costs, electrical construction costs, and creative construction costs, to the plaintiff.