1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the business closure and indirect compulsory performance compensation for C building D and E “F increase store” is made.

1. The court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance shall state the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and Article 3-3.

Except as mentioned below, the part below (C. Defendant’s violation of the prohibition of competition, 6. 17 pages) is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“. The Defendant’s breach of the duty not to engage in the competitive business 1) or the duty not to engage in the competitive business to engage in the same kind of business on his/her own or on the ground of a third party under an agreement on the transfer of business under an agreement on the transfer of business or Article 41 of the Commercial Act. As such, if the transferor of business creates a business in violation of the duty not to engage in the business, it is required to discontinue the business in order to resolve the breach of the duty not to engage in the business and lease the

As long as the substance of the business remains, the breach of duty is not resolved even if it is or transferred;

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da37985 delivered on December 23, 1996). In full view of each of the statements in the Health Center, Gap 5, 7 through 11, 17, 21 through 24, Eul 1, 21 through 24, and Eul 1, 2, and 3, since the business registration was commenced around September 2017 after the defendant's father's father's father's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's wife's husband's husband's husband's husband's medical records and water records were displayed inside and outside of the country, and the Defendant's medical records and water records were displayed on the Internet-related tables, and since the Defendant's operation of the control of this case was 2.5km away from the control of this case, the Defendant's products sold in the name of this case, or the products of this case and the changed products of the same kind with the Plaintiff's husband's's products.