1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s addition to the Plaintiff’s assertion that is emphasized by the court of first instance and vice versa, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

(However, the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 30 million on March 2, 2017 and the loan of KRW 10 million on March 7, 2017 are excluded herefrom). 2. Additional determination

A. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant with respect to the operation of the 3rd floor E store (hereinafter “third floor store”). At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to return KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff when the establishment of the 3rd floor store was completed. In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the accounts of the operation of the 2nd floor D store (hereinafter “the 2nd floor store”) and the 3rd floor store (hereinafter “the instant settlement agreement”) on August 3, 2017, the Plaintiff and the 3rd floor store (hereinafter “the 3rd floor store settlement agreement”). The content would be that (i) the Plaintiff given up all rights to KRW 120 million paid to the Defendant to the Defendant, and (ii) the Defendant paid KRW 30 million additionally to the Defendant, and (iii) the Defendant transferred all rights to the 2nd floor store to the Plaintiff, thereby suspending the operation of the 3rd floor store.

Since the Defendant violated the above settlement agreement and continuously runs the business on the third floor, it violates the duty of prohibition of competitive business under Article 41 of the Commercial Act. ② The Defendant was in violation of the duty of prohibition of competitive business under Article 41 of the Commercial Act, and it constitutes a juristic act by deception. ③ If the Defendant knew that he continued the business of the third floor store, the Plaintiff did not reach the settlement agreement of this case, which constitutes a juristic act by mistake.

The plaintiff shall cancel or cancel the settlement agreement of this case on the ground of the defendant's violation of duty not to engage in competitive business, deception, or mistake.

The settlement agreement of this case is to operate three-story stores.