1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 7, 2016 to October 19, 2017.

1. Prior to the judgment on the merits, the defendant's jurisdiction over the lawsuit of this case is within the Suwon District Court, which is the jurisdiction of the defendant's domicile, place of business, and the party involved in the basic contract of this case, since the lawsuit of this case must be dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is a lawsuit seeking monetary payment by the plaintiff's own assertion, and since the plaintiff's domicile is the party responsible for performing the obligation of monetary payment, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

2. The following points are examined.

A. 1) On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are mutually cafeterias with the name of “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, namely, “D” on the second floor of Mai-si, Mai-si.

(A) a contract under which all of the physical facilities, trade names, goodwills, and leases are to be assigned to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer contract”) in the amount of KRW 65,000,000 ( separate from the lease deposit of KRW 40,000,000).

2) The sales of the instant restaurant is to make the instant restaurant food together with the crypt by providing the crypter, swine scraper, and original crypter to be be bended on the crypter.

3) From May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant. 4) From July 8, 2016, the Defendant opened and operated a restaurant with the “F” trade name, which sells scrapers and pigs from the second floor of the building located in the instant restaurant in the luminous city located approximately 200 meters away from approximately 20 meters away from the instant restaurant.

5) On the other hand, around December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the instant restaurant to another person, and he/she has discontinued his/her business. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and Eul 3, and the entire purport of the pleadings.]

B. Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act as to whether the Defendant violated the obligation of prohibition of competitive business is transferred, unless otherwise agreed, the transferor is adjacent to the same Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Si, or Gun for ten years.