beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 22, 2019 to January 17, 2020.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 17, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to take over KRW 5,00,000 (which includes both the cost of taking over the entire facilities and the amount of the premium) that was operated in the name of “E” from the Defendant in Namyang-si, the Nam-si, the fourth and fourth floor (hereinafter “E”), and paid KRW 50,000,000 for the same day, and paid KRW 50,000 for the remainder from July 19, 2017 to August 16, 2017, and from August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff is running the party headquarters in the instant Gu from August 1, 2017.
B. Around October 2018, the Defendant accepted and operated the billiard which had been operated as the trade name “G” on the building of Namyang-si and the third floor of the building of Namyang-si, which was approximately KRW 700 meters away from the instant billiard.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant transferred all of the party headquarters business of this case to the plaintiff, but it violated the duty of prohibition of competitive business by operating the "G" hall, which is the same kind of business in Namyang-si, Nam-si, the same region, and thus, it is obligated to pay the plaintiff consolation money of KRW 10,000,000 and delay damages.
3. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant transferred the business of the party branch of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant, the transferor of the party branch of this case, pursuant to Article 41 (1) of the Commercial Act, was unable to engage in the same kind of business for 10 years at the Namyang city where the party branch of this case is located, but from October 2018 to June 3, 2018, operated the F building of Namyang city and the party branch of "G" on the third floor of "G". It is reasonable to view that the defendant violated the duty of prohibition of competitive business by the transferor of the party branch of this case.