(a) It shall not run the main business until March 31, 2027 in Busan Metropolitan City area; and

A. On April 19, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on April 19, 2017 on the transfer of tangible and intangible assets, such as facilities and business know-how, to the Plaintiff at KRW 85 million for premium payments, while operating a main store with the trade name “F” on the first floor of the building located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan (hereinafter “first store”).

(hereinafter “instant transfer contract”). (b)

On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff received the first shop after fully paying the premium to the Defendant.

C. From September 20, 2017 to September 20, 2017, the Defendant is operating a business establishment (hereinafter “second store”) with the trade name “D” from the first floor of the building located in the Busan-gu Busan-gu, Busan-do.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 3 (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the parties' assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Although the Defendant, as the transferor of the business, bears the duty of prohibition of competition pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act against the Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the duty of prohibition of competition by operating the first and the second units of the same business at a place not exceeding 400 meters away from the first place of business.

Therefore, the plaintiff claims against the defendant for the prohibition of competition and discontinuation of business, and at the same time, claims for the payment of consolation money of KRW 20 million.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff of the method of cooking, which is the most important business property of the first shop, and two employees have ceased to exist immediately after the Plaintiff acquired the said shop. As such, the instant transfer contract is not a transfer of business under the Commercial Act. (ii) On the other hand, the first store is a typical door-type store providing the recipient and beer, etc., while the second store is a general restaurant that mainly provides the ice park and beer, etc., and thus, the said two stores cannot be viewed as the same kind of business.

Judgment

A. Determination as to the prohibition of competitive business and the claim for closure of business 1) Whether the transfer contract of this case constitutes a transfer of business under the Commercial Act, and Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act refers to a certain business.