beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall not operate beauty room business until November 5, 2020 in Yong-Namnam-gun D area.
2...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant B concluded a contract for the transfer of business to the Plaintiff to transfer to the Plaintiff 45,000,000 premium (including all facilities, goods, and house fixtures) in the name of “H” located in Young-nam, Young-gun G located in Jeonnam-gun, which was operated by Defendant B.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)
The contract of this case added a clause that "(Defendant B) will not open from the territory in the next five years after the transfer," as a special agreement."
C. However, around May 3, 2019, Defendant B, the spouse of the Defendant C, registered the business under the name of the Defendant C, and opened a beauty art room with the trade name of “F Beauty-gun E” located from 836 meters away from the above “H,” and closed the beauty art room on May 30, 2019 after receiving the Plaintiff’s claim.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Although the Defendants agreed not to engage in the same kind of business in the field for five (5) years after November 6, 2015 under the instant contract, the Plaintiff started operating a beauty room in the Young-gun, and thus, the Plaintiff sought a prohibition of running the business until November 5, 2020, which the Defendants opened.
In addition, the defendants seek payment of KRW 25,000,000 as compensation for property damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the violation of the defendants' duty of prohibition of competition, and KRW 20,000 as compensation for mental suffering.
B. The Defendants’ duty of prohibiting competition is Defendant B, and F Beauty room is opened by Defendant C, and Defendant B merely assisted F Beauty room’s duty to prepare for the business. Thus, the Defendants did not violate the duty of prohibiting competition.
3. In addition to the above-mentioned facts, in light of the overall purport of the pleading, the Defendants, as a beauty artist’s husband and wife, operate “H” together with Defendant B’s consent.