1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is as follows. ① The part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and ② The ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

[Attachment] The part of the judgment of the first instance court 2 pages 12 to 13 “The head of the instant head office is operating the instant head office as of the date of the closing of argument.” “The head of the instant head office is in excess of a third party after receiving KRW 30,00,000 from February 2, 2016 when operating the head office of this case.” [Supplement] The Defendant acquired the head office of this case from the Plaintiff on May 21, 2012, and the instant provisional disposition order order the Plaintiff not to engage in the same type of business as stipulated in Article 41 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s operation of the instant head office of the instant head office and the type or type of the business of the instant head office constitutes a business ordering the prohibition in the instant provisional disposition order. The specific contents and scope of the obligation ordered in the provisional disposition order should, in principle, be interpreted in accordance with the text of the provisional disposition order order, and it should not be interpreted easily by expanding it.

However, it is reasonable to view that the duty of omission to the Plaintiff, the debtor of the instant provisional disposition, in addition to the Plaintiff’s business activity, etc. at the time of the instant provisional disposition decision, which is the object of dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, as stated in the evidence No. 1, is not a so-called “house business” dealing mainly with the instant provisional disposition, which is the same as the instant house.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit of demurrer against the grant of execution clause like this case, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the fulfillment of the condition that is the premise for granting execution clause.

However, the first instance court is the same.