1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a corporation that carries on the business of an over-baking bread franchise store under the trade name of “bakb”.

On January 30, 2012, Defendant A entered into a franchise agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Plaintiff on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) to operate the “bareboat C” for two years from the date of conclusion of the agreement, and operated the said franchise store.

On December 2, 2013, Defendant A notified the Plaintiff of the absence of intent to renew the contract after the expiration of the instant contract term, and accordingly, the instant contract was terminated on January 29, 2014.

After the completion of the instant contract, Defendant A, the husband of the Defendant A, began to operate a store that manufactures and sells bread in the name of “D” at the instant store.

The contents of the instant contract relating to the instant case are as follows.

Article 36 (Termination of Contracts) (5) The defendant A may not continue to operate the same type of business in the same business area for two years after the termination or termination of the contract.

Business activities conducted by lending another person's name shall also be included.

Article 37 (Compensation for Damages) Where Defendant A violates Article 18 (Confidentiality), 19 (Duty of Confidentiality) and 36 (5) within the term of the contract or after the termination of the contract, Defendant A shall pay 50 million won as penalty to the Plaintiff.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole argument by the plaintiff, after the termination of the contract of this case, the defendant A continues to engage in the same kind of business with the registration of the business owner as the husband Eul at the same place after the termination of the contract of this case. Since the defendant A violated Article 36(5) of the contract of this case, pursuant to Article 37, the defendant B was jointly and severally liable with the defendant A as the joint tortfeasor who leased the business name, and paid the plaintiff KRW 50 million as compensation for damages.