1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the transfer of business rights between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) operated the business of the dissolution store in the name of “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); and (b) transferred all the instant restaurant business rights to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2015 (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”); and (c) paid KRW 77,000,000 to the Plaintiff in return.

Around that time, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with E, a lessor of the said store, and is running the restaurant business of this case until now.

On the other hand, in the “real estate lease agreement” between the Plaintiff and E, the Defendant stated that “B (the tenant in question) will not sell a lump sum of the brying and soup in the fore and in the fore and in the fore and in the fore and in the fore and fry.”

B. On September 24, 2015, F, the Defendant’s wife in the Defendant’s managing the Defendant’s frequency, opened a cluster with the name of “H” on the first and first floor of C and H. On November 26, 2015, the Defendant sent a text message stating, “I am able to keep today, and I am able to assist. I am am able to start a business with the sexual virtue, which does not us see. I am me. I will not lose the first instance trial, and I am am able to am honest and am honest.” On November 27, 2015, the Defendant sent a text message stating “H BD” as his previous customers’ cell phone.

The distance between the restaurant and H is about 476 meters.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 5, 7 and Eul's 1 to 4 (including provisional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) concluded the transfer contract of this case, which constitutes the transfer of business under the Commercial Act with the plaintiff, and agreed not to sell all of the obstacles, including making soup and making soup, at the time. Accordingly, the defendant bears the duty of prohibiting competitive business.

Nevertheless, the Defendant operates the frequency of “H” in the name of Hanam F, thereby making soup and making soup.