The defendant shall pay 5,586,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 22, 2020 to October 14, 2020 and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant concluded a contract of lecture with the Plaintiff operating a private teaching institute, and served as a school lecturer at a “D” private teaching institute operated by the Plaintiff in Young-si C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s private teaching institute”).

B. Around August 2019, the Defendant: (a) from September 11, 2019 to September 1, 2019, when only one month has passed since the Plaintiff’s driving school opened a lecture; and (b) from the campus in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s driving school, the Defendant served as an instructor.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2-4 Evidence

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was employed by another private teaching institute near the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute, thereby violating the duty of prohibition of competition among the content of the lecture service contract concluded with the Plaintiff.

The defendant, as a result of the compensation for damages, is obligated to pay the sum of the tuition fees for one-month for the students who discharged the plaintiff's private teaching institute after the defendant retired from the defendant and employed in the neighboring private teaching institute.

B. Determination 1) The following facts are acknowledged as either as acknowledged earlier or as indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings. A) The plaintiff and the defendant in a contract for the lectures prepared as of January 1, 2019, and Article 7 of the lecture service.

2. Paragraph (2) states, “The Defendant does not provide advice, employment, start-up, etc. to the business entities in competition with the Plaintiff within 2 km radius from the Plaintiff’s place of business without the Plaintiff’s prior written consent until one year has passed after the period of performing the entrusted duties and the completion date of the entrusted duties.”

B) Around August 2019, the Defendant was employed as a school lecturer at another private teaching institute immediately adjacent to the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute on September 11, 2019, immediately after the Plaintiff’s retirement. C) The Defendant opened a course identical to the course opened at the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute, such as “F,” at the newly employed private teaching institute, and trusted the Plaintiff’s parents to the G operated at the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute on September 2019, before commencing the lecture.