1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from September 1, 2016 to June 14, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract on the transfer of the right (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff to receive KRW 75 million from the Plaintiff’s premium by transferring the Plaintiff’s goodwill of a restaurant (hereinafter “D”) in the name of “D” located in Daejeon Seo-gu C, Daejeon (hereinafter “D”) and the lessee’s status of the facilities in and out of the Republic of Korea and the house and the instant restaurant, and to receive KRW 75 million from the Plaintiff as the premium.

B. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant the down payment of KRW 7.5 million on the day of the instant contract, and the remainder premium of KRW 67.5 million on October 6, 2014, and operated a restaurant (hereinafter “Plaintiff restaurant”) with the trade name “E” from October 10, 2016.

C. However, around January 19, 2015, the Defendant started the business of a restaurant (hereinafter “Defendant restaurant”) with the trade name “G” on the Daesung-gu F and the first floor located within 100m of the Plaintiff restaurant, and changed the name to “D” which was used as the trade name of the transferred pre-cafeteria restaurant immediately thereafter.

On April 2015, the defendant suspended the defendant restaurant business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) In concluding the instant contract, the Plaintiff acquired the right to operate the instant exclusive restaurant as well as the facilities inside and outside the part of the transfer exclusive restaurant, and thus, the legal nature of the instant contract constitutes a business transfer under the Commercial Act, and the Defendant bears the obligation not to engage in competitive business under the Commercial Act. 2) From January 19, 2015 to April 2015, the Defendant opened the Defendant restaurant at a place less than 100 meters away from the Plaintiff restaurant to the Plaintiff restaurant and violated the obligation not to engage in competitive business under the Commercial Act.

3) Since the Defendant’s violation of the duty of prohibition of competition constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s violation of the duty of prohibition of competition constitutes property damages of KRW 42.5 million (contribute premium KRW 37.5 million) and sales.