1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the assertion in the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is that the plaintiff's argument that the contract between the plaintiff and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "G") was not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's argument that the contract between August 9, 201 and the plaintiff's argument constitutes a transfer contract of business, Gap's fact inquiry reply to this court in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-si, and Chuncheon-si, each fact inquiry inquiry reply to this court, Hongcheon-si's tax information reply to this court, and I's financial transaction information reply to this court as follows. The judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows, and the judgment of the court of first instance is written as the reasons of the judgment of the first instance except for additional determination as of February 2, 201, and thus it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of

The May 10th of the judgment of the first instance is the Hongcheon-gun, which is the 10th 5th 10 e.g. from Hongcheon-gun.

The judgment of the court of first instance 9 pages 1 and 2 deleted “after entering into the instant contract after undergoing legal review related to the instant contract.”

The plaintiff shall delete "the plaintiff" of the 12th judgment of the first instance.

The judgment of the court of first instance 13 is based on the fact that the claim was transferred solely on the fact that the claim was transferred.

Along with the 13th 14th 14th son of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added.

2. The part to be determined additionally, even if the contract between the Plaintiff and G falls under the business transfer contract, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff impliedly approved the Defendant C’s operation of the business of manufacturing, selling, and constructing ready-mixed and concrete products, taking into account the following facts and circumstances, even if the contract between the Plaintiff and G falls under the business transfer contract, by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and arguments in Articles 10 through 21.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendants should perform the duty of prohibition of competition is without merit.

① Defendant C is on the ground of Redcheon-gun R Miscellaneous land located at a distance of km from July 2014 to G factories.