1. Until February 14, 2026, the defendant shall not engage in the breabing business in the area of Gyeyang City.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and his wife G entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff on March 1, 2016, when operating “K (hereinafter “K”) in the H building I (15 square meters) and J (30 square meters) of the H building at Yangsan-si, with the content that the Plaintiff sells all the trade name and fixtures of the instant task at KRW 350 million.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of business that operates the instant tasks with the trade name “L” as the category of tasks, and operated the instant tasks from that time.

C. On May 2016, the Defendant registered his/her business under the trade name “F” in Busan Shipping Daegu M (hereinafter “Defendant’s control”), and thereafter is running a task at the Defendant’s control point from that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to transfer the instant task and its goodwill to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant, as the transferor, shall not engage in the same kind of business at Yangsan City where the instant task is located for 10 years pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act.

However, from October 2017 to around 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 2017 in the name of N, his father, the Defendant runs the business of operating the F Capital Increase Points (hereinafter “F Capital Increase Points”); and (b) since the F Capital Increase Points (hereinafter “F Capital Increase Points”) runs the business of operating the same kind as the instant tasks, it is necessary to close down the Capital Increase Points; and (c) if the Defendant violated this, it is necessary to impose indirect compulsory payments calculated by the ratio of KRW 300,000 per day to the Plaintiff.

In addition, even though the Defendant concluded a contract to transfer the instant task to the Plaintiff, it would incur mental pain to the Plaintiff by operating the premium points in the vicinity by violating the duty of prohibition of competition.