1. The Defendants are 10,000,000 won to each Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 28, 2016 to July 20, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff registered a business operator with the trade name “E” in subparagraph 113 of Article 113 of the Commercial Building Act and operated a restaurant by putting up the signboard “F” on the signboard.

B. The Plaintiff employed the Defendants, who are married couple, and operated the above restaurant. Specifically, when having the Defendants operate the above restaurant overall, the Plaintiff received only a certain amount of profit and received the remainder from the Defendants.

C. While Defendant C is in office as an employee of the Plaintiff, he leased part of 108 and 109 of the same building: (a) on July 25, 2016, Defendant C registered the business and reported the business in the trade name “G”.

The Defendants were dismissed from the Plaintiff on September 2, 2016, and Defendant C changed the name “H” on September 23, 2016.

그 후 피고들은 원고 음식점의 아르바이트생들을 채용하고 “I”이라는 간판을 내걸어 원고의 음식점과 동일한 돈가스와짬뽕을주메뉴로하는음식점을 운영하고 있다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted that they were the Plaintiff’s trade employee, who is the Plaintiff’s commercial employee, had the duty of prohibition of competitive business. During the period of service, the Defendants made an act of preparing a restaurant opening on the same building as the Plaintiff’s restaurant, and used the Plaintiff’s trade name to mislead the principal.

Therefore, the Defendants should pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 50 million and interest for delay.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., during the period of being employed by the plaintiff, the defendants are the same restaurant in the same building as the plaintiff's restaurant during which they were employed by the plaintiff.