1. By March 22, 2027, the defendant shall conduct the business under the name of the defendant or a third party in Gwangju Metropolitan City and its neighboring Si/Gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 23, 2017, the Defendant transferred the instant store C to the Plaintiff on March 23, 2017, while operating the BAR store (hereinafter “instant store”) with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “D”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant acquisition agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the lessee of the instant case, and entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty E, a lessor of a store, by setting the lease deposit as KRW 30 million. Under the instant transfer agreement, the Plaintiff received an employment contract entered into with the Defendant with Nonparty E, a lessee of the instant store, by paying KRW 5 million premium (sum payment of KRW 5 million on March 23, 2017, KRW 50 million, and KRW 50 million on March 28, 2017) to the Defendant.

C. The plaintiff was above B.

As described in subsection C, the following trade names, signboards, telephone numbers, and interior structures, facilities, etc. taken over the instant C store are used without changing them. D.

However, from May 16, 2017, the Defendant has taken over and operated a restaurant of “G” located in the Seo-gu F and 5th floor of Gwangju, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant F store”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff transferred the entire business of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff operated the Plaintiff, thereby causing interference with the Plaintiff’s business by operating the Ba (BAR) store in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, the same region as the above store location, and causing damage to the Plaintiff due to the decline in sales. As such, the Defendant’s Ba (BAR) business should be prohibited in accordance with Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act, and the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s duty of prohibition of competitive business.