1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is to pay KRW 112,50,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and to pay the full amount from April 27, 2016.

1. The assertion and judgment on the main claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) made an agreement between the Defendant and the representative director of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “B”) on November 2015 to pay the Plaintiff a lump-sum payment of KRW 100 million and KRW 12.5 million each month from December 2015 to December 2016 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff resigned from the office of the representative director of B.

However, the Defendant did not pay the remaining agreed money to the Plaintiff with only KRW 100 million and KRW 12.5 million on December 2015.

Therefore, the delivery of a duplicate of the main complaint of this case on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance, which cancelled the instant agreement, and the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 150 million equivalent to the performance interest.

(2) On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant violated the obligation not to engage in the competitive business stipulated in the instant agreement, and established Kwikset Service and selective distribution business, as well as C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with the Defendant, with the same type of business as the Defendant, and started selective sales business. Since the Defendant rescinded the instant agreement on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s breach of duty not to engage in the competitive business, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the amount set forth in the instant agreement.

B. In determining whether a person has a same type of business, the term “like type of business” means a broad concept rather than the same business, which refers to a business in competition or substitute relationship between two businesses. In determining whether a person has a same type of business, the type and type of business, the circumstances leading to the conclusion and rescission of an agreement prohibiting competitive business, and the circumstances before and after the termination of the agreement should be considered comprehensively, and only the circumstances that occurred until the termination of the agreement should be considered as a simple basis.

Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and fact-finding with respect to the National Health Insurance Corporation of this Court.