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

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C engaged in the restaurant business of “G” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) at a store located in “F in Gwangju City” (hereinafter “instant store”) around July 2016. Defendant C also operated the said restaurant business as an agent of Defendant C.

B. On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant store in KRW 30,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000 from the owner, and operated the restaurant business in the name of “G” from August 1, 2016.

C. Defendant C, while running a restaurant business with the trade name “E” in Gwangju City D, was closed at the end of April 2017.

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

2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff transferred the instant restaurant business to the Plaintiff around July 2016, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendants as premium.

However, the Defendants, around November 2016, opened a restaurant with the trade name “E” in Gwangju City, the neighboring area of the instant store, and violated the duty of prohibition of competitive business against the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants should not directly engage in, or have a third party conduct, the restaurant business in the neighboring Si/Gun of Gwangju City and Gwangju City for ten years from the following day from the date of discontinuance of business.

In addition, the Defendants should return to the Plaintiff the premium of KRW 15,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. First, there is no dispute between the parties that Defendant C transferred the above restaurant to a third party at the end of April 2017 and the fact that Defendant C discontinued the above restaurant. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part of the above premise is without merit without further review.

B. Next, as to the remaining claims, this is based on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the instant restaurant business from the Defendants, and this is examined.