1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for damages due to the breach of duty not to dispose of business shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From May 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant engaged in the operation of the restaurant called “E” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) on the first floor underground located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “E”).

B. The instant restaurant is a restaurant with foreign tourists as its main customer floor, and the miscellaneous store located on the first floor of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ctel adjacent to the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant miscellaneous store”) is registered in the name of F, the Defendant’s father, and the instant miscellaneous store was operated in the manner of inducing tourists who provided meals in the instant restaurant to purchase goods.

C. On June 23, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) transferred all of the Defendant’s rights on the operation of the instant restaurant from the Defendant to KRW 80 million; (b) the Defendant decided to withdraw from the restaurant business relationship of the instant restaurant; and (c) the Defendant agreed to abolish the instant miscellaneous point by October 31, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the agreement of this case, the Defendant agreed to close down the instant miscellaneous point until October 31, 2013 in order to fundamentally cut off the passenger activities conducted at the instant miscellaneous point by continuously affecting the operation of the instant restaurant by running the instant miscellaneous point. The Defendant continuously operated the instant miscellaneous point after October 31, 2013 in breach of the closure point agreement, thereby interfering with the Plaintiff’s restaurant business by continuously operating the instant miscellaneous point after October 31, 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered not only losses on the business of the instant cafeteria but also mental suffering.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the prohibition of sale, such as miscellaneous work, at the instant miscellaneous store, and ② the prohibition of disposition of the instant miscellaneous business.