1. As to KRW 3,92,106 and KRW 2,000,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from June 2, 2017 to February 14, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operated the beauty art room with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “the beauty art room in this case”).

B. From February 20, 2010, the Defendant served as a beauty artist at “D” located in Ma, which was practically operated by the Plaintiff from around February 20, 2010, and served as a beauty artist from January 1, 2015, which was operated by the Plaintiff.

C. On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a free business income contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”). The key contents are as shown in the attached Form.

After August 7, 2016, the Defendant terminated the instant contract and discontinued the beauty room of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the claim for damages caused by the breach of a non-commercial agreement under Article 6(3) of the instant contract that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant may not, for at least two years after the termination of the contract, actually participate in the management and operation of the Plaintiff’s store (including the opening of the Plaintiff’s name or another’s name).”

However, the Defendant, after cancelling the instant contract with the Plaintiff, opened and operated the beauty art room with the trade name “F(G)” at a place less than 187 meters away from the instant beauty art room.

The plaintiff suffered business losses due to the escape of the non-feld customers due to the violation of the above defendant's violation of the prohibition of competitive business agreement, and thereby suffering from mental suffering, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 15 million won as consolation money and delay damages.

(in respect of business damage, it shall not be claimed because it is difficult to prove it).

The plaintiff was purchased by the customers in charge of the defendant for the claim for the refund of the pre-paid and the amount of outstanding membership fees.