1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The parties' assertion

A. After the completion of the instant service, the Defendant: (a) operated the beauty art room within 4 km from the beauty art room of this case; and (b) violated the instant agreement prohibiting the competition (Article 6(3) of the instant agreement); and (c) accordingly, (d) sought compensation for damages in total amount of KRW 46 million as compensation for penalty under Article 7(3) of the instant agreement and consolation money for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s act

B. As the Defendant and the Plaintiff terminated the instant contract around September 2010, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the instant contract had been effectively maintained from April 201 to June 2012 is without merit, and ② even if the instant contract has been maintained during the Defendant’s working period, the instant provision on the prohibition of light business under Article 6(3) of the instant contract constitutes an anti-social legal act under Article 103 of the Civil Act because it excessively limits the Defendant’s freedom of choosing occupation, labor right, and right to life, which is an employee, and thus is null and void. The penalty provision under Article 7(3) of the instant contract is null and void as it compels an employee’s labor relationship, and is contrary to Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory provision.

3. The fact that Article 6(3) of the instant contract provides that, within one year after the termination of the instant contract, the Defendant cannot open his/her beauty room within 4 km from the Plaintiff’s shop. However, the fact that the Defendant retired from the beauty room on June 2012 and opened and operated his/her beauty room within 300 meters from the beauty room is the same as recognized above, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, barring any special circumstances.

4. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The instant contract is concluded.