1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2013, the Plaintiff acquired three-story E Private Institutes (hereinafter “instant Private Institutes”) located in Geum-gu, Busan, which was operated by Defendant B from Defendant B, in the amount of KRW 20 million, and changed the name of F Private Institutes (hereinafter “instant Private Institutes”).

B. Meanwhile, Defendant C, who received monthly salary from Defendant B and worked as the president of the instant private teaching institute, was transferred to the Plaintiff by the instant private teaching institute, and around May 31, 2013, operated “G” in the vicinity of the instant private teaching institute.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, witness H's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant B and Defendant C, who was the head of the pertinent private teaching institute, agreed not to operate another private teaching institute in the vicinity while transferring the instant private teaching institute to the Plaintiff, and operated “G”, which is a private teaching institute similar to the private teaching institute adjacent to the instant private teaching institute, in violation of the agreement, and thus, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 49 million (14 million in premium paid to the Defendant, KRW 1.5 million in the internal interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation cost, KRW 2 million in computer-related installation cost, KRW 2 million in computer-related installation cost, KRW 6 million in the director’s cost, KRW 3 million in the exchange cost, KRW 15 million in the exchange cost, KRW 15 million in the monthly rent, KRW 15 million in the premium, KRW 10 million in the premium and KRW 6 million in the removal of signboards and signboards, and KRW 2.1 million in the exchange cost in the instant private teaching institute).

3. Defendant B operated the above “G” solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant C, as a party to the instant private teaching institute transfer or takeover contract, entered into an agreement between the Plaintiff on the prohibition of competitive business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the Plaintiff on a different premise is without merit without further review.

4. The plaintiff's claim of this case in conclusion is dismissed as all grounds are without merit.