1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff, while operating the restaurant “E” located in Gyeongdong-gun D (hereinafter “E”) from around the Gyeongbuk-gun, sold the ballebbed, old-pawal, old-pawal, and bean water.

B. Defendant C completed his/her business registration with the trade name of “F” and sold the same me Newcom, etc. as the instant restaurant from around June 28, 2016 in the instant restaurant and about approximately 4 km-gun G from around June 28, 2016.

C. Defendant C is a child of Defendant B, and Plaintiff’s de facto spouse H is a co-car of Defendant B, which is a private village with Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and issues of the parties

A. The Defendants, on February 21, 2014, received KRW 28 million from the Plaintiff ( KRW 3 million for lease deposit) from the Plaintiff and transferred the instant restaurant’s business. As such, the Defendants, as the transferor of the business, are obligated to prohibit competitive business under Article 41 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, until February 21, 2024, the Defendants shall not engage in restaurant business in the area of the Gldong-gun, and shall be liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by the Plaintiff by operating a same restaurant in the name of “F” in breach of the duty of prohibition of competitive business.

B. Defendant B, who had operated 3 the restaurant with the summary of the Defendants’ assertion, was requested by Chok H to provide “to operate the restaurant of this case with the money equivalent to the facility cost,” and did not transfer the physical facilities of the restaurant of this case to the Plaintiff at KRW 25 million, which does not fall short of the facility cost, and did not transfer the restaurant of this case to the Plaintiff.

“F” is a restaurant operated independently by Defendant C, and Defendant B is dedicated to the operation of “I” located in the Gu and Si after the transfer of the instant restaurant.

Therefore, the Defendants are the Plaintiff.