1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From March 2013, the Defendant operated the skin management office (hereinafter “instant skin management office”) with the trade name “H” by leasing F and 1st floor G from the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

B. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the facilities and equipment of the skin management office of this case from the Defendant, and entered into a lease contract with the lessor I and the original city counter F, and with respect to the first floor G, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 350,000,000,000,000 monthly rent, and the lease term from March 7, 2014 to March 7, 2019.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff changed its trade name and signboard to “J” and used its internal structure and facilities as it is without changing them, and operated the skin management office of this case.

피고는 2018. 10.부터 이 사건 피부관리실에서 10m 정도 떨어진 창원시 의창구 C, 1층 D호 에서 천연염색 헤어�을 운영하기 시작하였고, 2019. 1. 7.부터 그곳에서 ‘E’이라는 상호로 천연염색 헤어�과 함께 피부관리실을 운영하고 있다.

[Ground of Fact recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 69 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant transferred the part management office of this case to the plaintiff and agreed not to conduct the same kind of business in the future, and even if there was no such agreement, there was no such agreement.

Even if the defendant is the transferor of the business of the department under control of this case, he/she shall not engage in the same kind of business at Changwon for ten years from March 7, 2014 pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff claims against the defendant for the payment of 9 million won and 20 million won of consolation money due to the performance of the obligation not to engage in the competitive business, the abolition of the same kind of business currently operated, and the non-performance of the obligation not to engage in the competitive business.

3. Determination

A. The defendant's decision on the duty to prohibit competitive business under the agreement is identical in the future when transferring the part management office of this case to the plaintiff.