1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant leased from E the 1st century F1st, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and operated an entertainment drinking house with the trade name “G” at the said place.

B. On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the business of G entertainment tavern from the Defendant in KRW 100,000,000 from the Defendant, but concluded a contract with KRW 30,000,000, the remainder of KRW 70,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 70,00,000 on June 11, 2016 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 30,000,000 on March 7, 2016, and began running an entertainment tavern business with the trade name “H” from March 21, 2016 to the same place as “H” from March 21, 2016.

(hereinafter “G entertainment taverns” regardless of whether it is before or after the mutual change.

On the other hand, on April 25, 2016, the Defendant acquired entertainment tavern business from I to KRW 69,50,000, the business of “D” in the name of “D” in the Daejeon Seo-gu 1st century, Daejeon, and commenced entertainment tavern business.

E. The instant “D” entertainment bars and G entertainment taverns are about 213 meters in a straight line with the f1st floor of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon.

【Ground for recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 8-1 through 3, Gap evidence 10, the testimony and the purport of whole pleadings by the first instance court witness J, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “In the case of transfer of business, unless otherwise agreed, the transferor shall not engage in the same kind of business in the same Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Si/Gun and any adjacent Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Gun for ten years.”

The obligation of the business transfer contract or the obligation of prohibition of competitive business to be borne by the business transferor under Article 41 of the Commercial Act is the obligation prohibiting the same kind of business or the same business on the ground of a third party.

(Supreme Court Decision 96Da37985 delivered on December 23, 1996, etc.).