[Judgment of the court below]

All appeals against Defendant 2 are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 26, 2002, the non-party corporation (hereinafter referred to as "non-party corporation") was awarded a successful bid for the building listed in the attached list 1 of the judgment below (hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building of this case") based on the adopted evidence, and recognized the fact that each of the stores in the commercial building of this case was sold to the buyers since around that time when the type of business was pre-designated, and where each of the stores in this case was designated and sold for each of the stores, the person who acquired the status of the buyer as to the buyer or the store of this case is specially assigned.

Unless there exist any circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the seller has an obligation to restrict the business type under mutual agreement in relation to the store occupants of the commercial building explicitly or implicitly, barring any special circumstance. Thus, it is assumed that the seller has a duty to observe mutual agreement on the restriction of business type. Thus, although the seller has a duty to set up a specific business to the purchaser and sell it or set the types of business to be run at each shop which is the object of sectional ownership among sectional owners, the sale company basically has the meaning of guaranteeing the buyer or sectional owners to exclusively operate the business type, the exclusive position of the buyer or sectional owners who purchase ownership can be changed by their own agreement. Considering each provision of Articles 23(1) and 38(1) of the Multi-Unitial Building Act, if a sectional ownership relation is established with respect to the building, a management body composed of the sectional owners is naturally established, and the intention of the management body's meeting is the majority of the sectional owners and voting rights. < Amended by Act No. 7889, Mar. 3, 2006>

21. The agreement between the sectional owners of the building of this case at the time of the sales contract of the building of this case was changed as above by the agreement of the sectional owners, with the consent of a majority of the sectional owners and the abolition of the restriction on the type of business of the store except for the category of business of the store which the owner directly operated, and the agreement between the sectional owners of the building of this case was concluded to be changed as above by the agreement of the sectional owners, and all the sectional owners who purchased the building of this case, designated as the real estate brokerage business type, including the plaintiffs, did not directly operate

B. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the agreement between the sectional owners at the time of the sale contract of the commercial building of this case was changed according to the agreement of the sectional owners.

Even if the sale company established the type of business to be run at a shop which is the object of sectional ownership among the buyers, or among the sectional owners, the purchaser or sectional owners can change the type of business by their own agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da45496, Nov. 10, 2005). When the sectional ownership relation is established with respect to each of the provisions of Articles 23(1) and 38(1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, the management body composed of all sectional owners is naturally established, thereby carrying out the business of managing the building and its site and its accessory facilities, and the intention of the management body meeting is determined by the majority of sectional owners and voting rights, unless otherwise provided by the above Acts or regulations.

However, it is substantially meaningful that the management body may modify or abolish the "agreement on the restriction on the type of business according to the sale contract" by its resolution in light of the motive or circumstance of the agreement on the restriction on the type of business in the sale contract as well as the expectation of the right of occupants, such as the buyer and the buyer, etc., and the degree of such expectation and acceptance, it is reasonable to view that the resolution on the change or abolition of the type of business in the sale contract as mentioned above requires the consent of the existing occupant of the designated type of business in addition to meeting the quorum and quorum of the intention stipulated in the articles of association, self-governing rules or management rules of the management body itself, in addition to the resolution on the change or abolition of the type of business in the sale contract.

Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the agreement between the sectional owners at the time of the sales contract of the commercial building of this case was changed according to the agreement of the sectional owners. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the appeal against the defendant 2

The plaintiffs did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal against the defendant 2, and did not submit the grounds of appeal within the due period for submission of the appellate brief.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal, the part against Defendant 1 among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All appeals against Defendant 2 are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-young

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Hwang-sik

Justices Lee Hong-hoon