1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was running the real estate real estate agent office (hereinafter “instant licensed real estate agent office”) under the name of “E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” on the lease of No. 202, 01-217, Da 202, and 202, located in Asan-si, Asan-si. However, around January 10, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 40,000 from the Plaintiff and transferred the establishment of the instant licensed real estate agent office to the Plaintiff.

After that, the Plaintiff is running the business of the real estate agent office by continuing to use the trade name of the "E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office" after concluding a new lease agreement with the lessor on the commercial matters of the instant Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.

B. From December 30, 2013 to October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff paid 40,000 won for premiums to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant transferred the instant licensed real estate agent’s office to the Plaintiff and moved the place of business to Sejong City around October 8, 2014, but commenced the business of the real estate agent’s office from January 2015 to the name of “G real estate” in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoan City.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. In the principal of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the relocation of the instant licensed real estate agent’s office constitutes a transfer of business under the Commercial Act, and the Defendant is obligated not to engage in the same kind of business in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Si, or Gun, the same as the location of the licensed real estate agent’s office for ten years under Article 4

Preliminaryly, even if the transfer of the real estate agent office of this case does not fall under the business transfer under the Commercial Act, the defendant transferred the exclusive brokerage authority on the five shops of H-owned commercial buildings (hereinafter “the commercial building of this case”) to the plaintiff, thereby making an agreement on the prohibition of competitive business regarding the commercial building.

However, since the defendant violated the duty of prohibition of competition, the defendant is liable for damages of the plaintiff.