1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, who operated the instant singing room (hereinafter “instant singing room”) under the trade name of the building C and the second floor leased and singing the instant singing room (hereinafter “instant singing room”), under which the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to take over the instant singing room (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 37 million in total to the Defendant, including KRW 4 million on February 13, 2017, KRW 30 million on February 27, 2017, KRW 1 million on March 31, 2017, KRW 1 million on May 1, 2017, and KRW 1 million on June 15, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, even after the instant contract, the Defendant operates a singing room in the vicinity of the instant singing room with the trade name “Esing room”.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 10 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) since the Defendant transferred the instant singing room business to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not engage in the same kind of business in the same area for ten years pursuant to Article 41 of the Commercial Act, but violated the obligation of prohibition of competitive business as stipulated in Article 41 of the Commercial Act by running the instant singing room business in the name of “Esing practice room” in the vicinity of the instant singing room. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37 million premium paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay thereof. (2) or the Defendant, when preparing for a singing room business in the vicinity of the instant singing room at the time of the instant contract, failed to notify

Therefore, the plaintiff cancels the contract of this case in accordance with Article 110 of the Civil Code. The defendant is obligated to refund to the plaintiff the amount of 37 million won paid by the plaintiff and the delay damages.

B. We examine the determination on the claim for damages on the ground of the breach of the duty of prohibition of competition 1.