1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 27, 2018 to August 23, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant has been running the party hall business in the name of “D” on the part of Ku Government-si C and the second floor (hereinafter “instant party hall”).

On May 24, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to accept all of the businesses, such as the facilities, etc. of the instant party hall from the Defendant in KRW 18,000,000 for premiums. By May 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 18,00,000 for premiums to the Defendant by May 31, 2018. On May 28, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the said store from E, a lessor of the instant party hall store, KRW 1,100,00 for rent monthly, KRW 20,000 for lease deposit.

B. On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff registered the business of the party headquarters of this case in its name, and started the business of the party headquarters of this case since that time without changing the trade name, signboard, telephone number, etc. of the party headquarters of this case.

C. From August 2018, the Defendant: (a) from the head of the instant party from around 260 meters to the head of the instant party headquarters, transferred the existing party headquarters F and 3rd floor G with the trade name “H party headquarters”; (b) opened and operated the party headquarters in the name of “H party headquarters”; (c) transferred the relevant party headquarters to B on January 2019.

(However, on November 19, 2018, prior to the above transfer of business, the Defendant filed a report on the closure of the HH party president’s business. [Grounds for recognition] 【No dispute, the entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant transferred all of the business of the party headquarters of this case to the plaintiff, but it violated the duty of prohibition of the plaintiff's competitive business by operating the "H party hall", which is the same kind of business in the same region, and thus, it is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff 18,00,000 won and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. According to the fact that the defendant transferred the business of the party headquarters of this case to the plaintiff, as the defendant transferred the business of the party headquarters of this case, the defendant, who is the transferor of the business, pursuant to Article 41 (1) of the Commercial Act.