1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2003 to January 201, 2016, the Defendant operated the restaurant with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessor, a lessor of the instant restaurant building and the instant restaurant, with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and from February 1, 2016 to January 13, 2021, and leased the said restaurant.

C. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased two air conditioners, LPG gas and gas bags, air conditioners, two air conditioners, cooking equipment, etc., which were in the instant restaurant, from the Defendant. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,00,000,000 to the Defendant respectively.

On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff started the restaurant business of this case while using the existing trade name from around January 29, 2016, but discontinued the restaurant of this case around March 2, 2017.

E. Around August 2016, the Defendant opened and operated a restaurant with the trade name “G” located 730 meters away from the restaurant of this case from the instant restaurant up to the present day.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties has concluded a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to transfer or take over the restaurant of this case orally, and the defendant bears the duty of prohibiting competitive business.

Nevertheless, the defendant asserts that the restaurant operated the same restaurant at a place 790 meters away from the restaurant of this case and violated the duty of prohibition of competitive business, and accordingly, the plaintiff should compensate for the loss caused by the decline in sales, etc.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the business takeover between the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not enter into a contract, and that it was merely sold to the plaintiff the cooling house, etc. in the instant restaurant.

3. The transferor is not obligated to engage in competitive business in accordance with Article 41(1) of the Commercial Code, which pertains to one relevant law.