1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

In the first instance court, the plaintiff sought the prohibition of competitive business, the closure of business, the prohibition of transfer of restaurant operating rights, the indirect compulsory performance, the compensation for damages, and the return of unjust enrichment (in the first instance court, the return of unjust enrichment due to the conjunctive fraudulent act and the cancellation of contract by deception). The first instance court dismissed all the plaintiff's claim.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal only for the portion of the claim for damages and restitution of unjust enrichment, and added the claim amount to the conjunctive claim for damages caused by deception while reducing the amount of the claim amount as above.

Therefore, since only the part of the claim for damages and the return of unjust enrichment is subject to the judgment of this court, only this part shall be judged.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “No. 2, 2016.” “No. 2, 2016.” “No. 7, 2016.” and “No. 1, 201.”

In addition to the amendment as follows, Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

[Changes] - Grounds of the first instance judgment No. 1-D.

Paragraph (1)

D. On February 2, 2016, the Defendant opened a restaurant with the same trade name as the instant restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “F restaurant”) on March 3, 2016, by leasing approximately 1.5km Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, and approximately 1.5km, and approximately 1.5km, respectively.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff, as the primary cause of the claim, acquired the instant restaurant business from the Defendant in accordance with the instant contract.

However, the Defendant, a business transferor, violated his duty not to engage in competitive business, operates a F cafeteria which mutually operates the same kind of business as the instant cafeteria from March 3, 2016 at a place that is not far away from the 1.5km away from the instant cafeteria.

The defendant violated the duty of prohibition of competitive business and caused business losses and mental suffering to the plaintiff who is a transferee of the business, and therefore, 5,000.