1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts in height:

A. The fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance

B. (2) In the judgment of the court below, although the category of business operated by the original defendant was an intentional loan, the agreement of the prohibition of competition in this case provides a wide range of business to the category of business operated by the original defendant, and the defendant is prohibited from engaging in the business in all forms, including directly operating the business in this field or employing as an employee.

B. From the 6th to 5th half of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, the legal principles on the validity of the agreement on the prohibition of competition in this case as to whether it can be deemed valid within the reasonable limit of the business type, place, period, scope of personal coverage, etc. subject to the agreement on the prohibition of competition in this case are differentiated from the contents of the legal act, and where it is recognized that the agreement on the prohibition of competition in this case was done without the invalid portion, the remaining part is valid (the proviso of Article 137 of the Civil Act and the agreement on the prohibition of competition in this case is concluded as a whole, and it is not easy to separate the agreement on the prohibition of competition in this case, because the applicable business type, place, period, and personal coverage are excessively broad, and even if there was no evidence that the defendant still intended to conclude the agreement on the prohibition of competition in this case within the reasonable limit, it is difficult to view that the agreement in this case is valid within the reasonable limit.

Even if otherwise, the period of partnership with the plaintiff and the defendant remains only one year, and the liquidation money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant against the defendant's investment.