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

A. The Defendant is a person who has operated a business in the name of Yangcheon-gu Seoul E and 102 “D cafeteria” (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”).

B. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with respect to the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The address of a sales contract: The area of D cafeteria 102: approximately 20 square meters: the date of transfer of D cafeteria 20: February 2, 2016: Deposit (0 million won) in KRW 20 million (building 10 million) and monthly rent shall be entered into a contract separately with the owner of the building.

(F) Costs of store consumption, including monthly rent of KRW 00,000,000, shall be excluded.

A contract shall be invalidated when the deposit of ten million won for down payment (0 million won a day) - KRW 10 million for the remainder of January 7, 2016 is not paid until January 7, 2016, when the deposit of ten million won for the down payment of special matters at February 24, 2016 is not made by January 7, 2016.

A (resident registration number omitted) buyer A (resident registration number omitted)

C. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant by January 7, 2016, and KRW 20 million by February 2, 2016, respectively, and completed business registration on February 5, 2016, and began business of the instant restaurant from February 11, 2016.

On March 3, 2016, the Defendant opened a restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “F restaurant”) in the same trade name as the instant restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “F restaurant”) in Yangcheon-gu Seoul and approximately 1.5km away from the instant restaurant and approximately 1.5km.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million and used the trade name, equipment, merap New, signboards, restaurant facilities, and telephone numbers, etc. used by the Defendant as they were. The Plaintiff acquired the instant restaurant business by transferring the core Medi New, thereby taking over the instant restaurant business. From March 5, 2016, the Defendant violated the duty of prohibition of light business under Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act.