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

A. On April 3, 2014, the Defendant concluded a contract for the transfer and takeover of the right (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff to transfer the right, etc. to the beauty room and to receive KRW 33,500,000 for total premium (hereinafter “the instant contract”) from the Plaintiff, while operating the beauty room in the name of “E” (hereinafter “E”), which was leased from “Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Young-si D and 106.” Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 33,50,000 from the Plaintiff and delivered the instant beauty room to the Plaintiff.

B. Since May 2014, the Plaintiff operated the beauty art room in the instant case with the trade name “F” changed from May 2014, and the Defendant opened and operated the beauty art room with the trade name “E”, which was approximately KRW 357 meters away from the beauty art room in a straight line from the instant beauty art room to approximately 357 meters.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, although the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s tenant status to the Plaintiff under the instant contract and transferred the instant beauty room business, the Plaintiff breached the duty of no competition by opening a new beauty room in the vicinity of the beauty room and sending text messages to his previous customers to promote the newly opened beauty room, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 35 million for property damage and KRW 30 million for tort damages.

The Defendant did not transfer the business, but received premiums for the change of commercial tenants. At the time of the contract of this case, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Defendant would open a new beauty room in the vicinity of the beauty room of this case, and transferred the customer list used previously to the Plaintiff.