1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In light of the Plaintiff’s business nature of the Plaintiff’s assertion beauty room, once the customer is confined, the customer is highly likely to become a fixed customer who does not change the beauty room, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the customer’s information held by the previous business transferor in the business transfer of beauty room constitutes a functional property which serves as the source of profit and constitutes a part of business.

A business premium of KRW 40 million paid under the transfer contract of this case includes not only a place interest, but also a customer security in beauty rooms, that is, all relevant information about visiting customers secured by the defendant in the course of running his business. Since the plaintiff continues to engage in beauty business, which is the defendant's previous business activity, the transfer contract of this case constitutes a business transfer under Article 41 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, although the Defendant, the transferor of the instant transfer contract, was obligated to transfer to the Plaintiff, the transferee, a customer management who is an know-how, etc., to ensure that the Plaintiff does not interfere with the initial business activities, the Defendant commenced the same kind of business in Sejong Special Self-Governing City adjacent to the instant beauty room, and came into violation of the Plaintiff’s business rights by notifying the customers of the fact of business operation, such as opening and soliciting the customers by using customer name groups secured in the previous business process, etc., and thereby, the Plaintiff failed to attract customers through the existing customer information received from the Defendant, and eventually closed the business on July 10, 2018.

Therefore, the defendant, as the transferor of the business transfer under the Commercial Act, failed to perform the obligations under the transfer contract of this case, has the business right to the plaintiff.