1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 2018, the Plaintiff and C (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) entered into a lease agreement with G and H on October 26, 2018, under which the Plaintiff, etc. entered into the said lease agreement with the Defendant on the acquisition of all the instant store business facilities and rights in F in Seongbuk-gu D and E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant operated by the Defendant for KRW 40,000 for premium (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). The Plaintiff, etc. entered into the said lease agreement with G and H on October 26, 2018, and completed each payment of KRW 30,00,000 for the instant store and KRW 40,000 for the said premium, etc., and the Plaintiff, etc. currently operating the instant car page at the instant store may be recognized as having no dispute between the parties, or as having entered the entire purport of evidence as a whole in the oral proceedings.

2. In order for the Plaintiff’s assertion to succeed to the instant carpet business, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the Defendant was discovered as illegal business in the course of reporting the succession to the status of food business operators to the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office (hereinafter “the detection of the instant case”). As a result, the Plaintiff could not ordinarily succeed to the business, thereby resulting in significant damage, such as removal of the previous facilities and removal of new facilities and obtaining permission for business.

As such, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff et al. of the detection of this case, and entered into the contract of this case by deceiving the plaintiff et al., and committed a violation of the duty of prohibition of competition by opening and operating the same kind of car in the building immediately next to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is entitled to compensation of KRW 8,610,000 which was invested in the course of receiving the return of the above premium of KRW 40,000 and new business permission

3. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., there is no evidence that the Defendant intentionally concealed the instant suspected fact at the time of the instant contract, which is acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements No. 2, No. 2, and No. 1.