1. The Defendant paid KRW 4,705,206 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from June 23, 2015 to November 10, 2016.

1. On January 201, the Plaintiff: (a) opened a franchise store called “D” (hereinafter “D”) in Pakistan-si; (b) entered into a contract with the Defendant on February 28, 2013 to transfer or acquire all the facilities, business, etc. of the instant subdivision store with the Defendant.

On March 15, 2013, after receiving the delivery of the instant subdivision store according to the said transfer or acquisition contract, the Defendant succeeded to the trade name, facilities, etc. after completing the business report and the business registration, and commenced the business.

On the other hand, around March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff opened a window-type store (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s window-type store”) with the trade name “F” from the E-type building located from approximately 1.5km to 2km away from the instant window-type store.

On October 10, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a provisional injunction, alleging that the Plaintiff violated the duty of non-commercial prohibition, and received a decision of non-commercial prohibition (this court 2014Kahap5082) in this court. From October 16, 2014 on the day following the date when the Plaintiff received the decision of provisional injunction, the Defendant suspended its business in a temporarily-run manner, but started its business again from November 8, 2014. The Defendant filed an application for indirect compulsory enforcement and received an indirect compulsory enforcement order (this court G) on January 15, 2015.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking business prohibition, etc. (this Court Decision 2014Gahap53608). In the instant case, the Defendant rendered a judgment against the Defendant on May 28, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff intended to establish a new window immediately after the transfer or acquisition contract, and in fact, the Defendant used food materials while coming to the Plaintiff’s window dressing point, or used them to work, etc., to which the Plaintiff hired, the Defendant implicitly consented or consented to the Plaintiff’s window dressing business.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on June 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a)a party’s assertion;