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

A defendant shall not engage in any business activity that teaches pianno referred to in subparagraph 30 of the fourth floor among buildings listed in the attached Table.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The total EXO meeting consisting of the sectional owners, occupants, etc. of the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) was established on February 1995 by the Act on the Operation and Management of Large Store (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Rules”) and was enforced on three occasions, including the following: < Amended by Act No. 5153, Aug. 8, 1996; Act No. 590, Jan. 1, 1999; Act No. 7189, Jun. 6, 2004>

Article 1:The purpose of this Code is to provide for matters necessary for the protection of the whole property, protection of the rights and interests, and the efficient management and operation of sound commercial activities as a sound commercial activity, in respect of the joint management and operation of the buildings of large retail stores 466-3 X-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, by applying mutatis mutandis the Distribution Industry Development Act, the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, the Housing Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.

Article 3:The Acts and subordinate statutes applied mutatis mutandis for the purpose of Article 1 shall apply in case where disputes arise concerning these rules.

Article 10 (2) 2: Each floor conference comprised of the occupants or occupants of each floor shall be established for the smooth operation of the commercial building, and the floor conference may be established and implemented by establishing a rule.

Article 16 (2): Civil petitions concerning floors and matters to be treated shall be handled by the executive council of the floor.

Article 25:Promotion of the development of commercial buildings by placing balanced types of business according to the guidance for sale in lots.

(4) No possessor shall handle any goods related to other floors.

(5) In principle, the classification of types of business by floor shall be as follows:

4th floor: “a hospital, specialized restaurant, private teaching institute, coffee shop, beauty shop, gymnasium”

* The detailed matters shall be delegated to the prosperity conference by floor and shall be the execution key.

The rules of X-Poco A 4-story (hereinafter referred to as the “fourth-story rules”) enacted in accordance with Article 10(2)2 of the Rules of this case were in force on January 23, 2003, amended on February 2006, and prescribed the following matters from the date of entry into force:

Article 3 Subparag. 1: Members shall be the shop occupants and occupants of four-story commercial buildings, and only one person per store shall be recognized.

Article 4 (2): Members shall be obliged to implement the matters determined by the fourth floor council and the total conference.

Article 12 subparagraph 3 of Article 12: Where the types of business and new types of business overlap prior to the enforcement date of the rules, they shall be occupied after obtaining approval from the management authority after consultation with the fourth-story council.

Subparagraph 3 of Article 1 of the Addenda: Matters not enacted by the regulations shall be governed by the regulations of this case.

The plaintiff Lee Young-young purchased No. 3 of the fourth floor among the building of this case on May 19, 1997, and operated the so-called piano teaching business in the above store from September 2001 to the present day. The plaintiff Lee Young-jin leased No. 18-2 of the fourth floor among the above buildings and operated the so-called pian teaching business in the above store from April 2004 to the present day.

On October 6, 2004, the Defendant entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with Kim Jong-Un purchased on July 1, 1999 with respect to subparagraph 30 of the fourth floor among the above buildings, and from November 2004 to the present date, the Defendant runs a business of nanotechnology in the above store with the trade name of "Gegylsung Music Private Teaching Institutes", but did not consult with or obtain the approval of the management office from the fourth floor of the 4th floor of the 1999 to January 3, 2004. The above store was used for the healthcare business from July 28, 199 to January 3, 2004, and thereafter was not until the above contract was concluded.

On October 15, 2004, the EXE General Steering Committee decided to return it to the fourth floor because the Defendant's sales problem of the EX is about the floor. The fourth floor of the EXE is opposing the Defendant's sales of the POE.

[Ground of recognition] 1-1 to 15-2, Gap evidence 19, Gap evidence 32, Eul evidence 35-1 to Gap evidence 42, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5, some of Eul evidence 7-1 to Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 7-1 to Gap's 15-2, and the fact-finding of the X-Oco's total operation council of this court's X-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the fact-finding.

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) is not an organization established only through any organizational act, but where there is a building which is established as a sectional ownership, it is naturally an organization formed with all sectional owners as members of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. If a management body consists of sectional owners and conforms to the purport of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, it may play a role as a management body regardless of its form of existence or title.

According to the above facts, the EXE conference becomes a management body under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and the regulations of this case established by the resolution shall be binding upon the special successor as well as the merchant who did not participate in the resolution as well as the special successor. The fourth floor rules are effective upon delegation of the above regulations. The defendant, who is the possessor of the building of this case, shall have the same obligation to be borne by the sectional owner (Article 4(2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings).

Therefore, the defendant whose type of business overlaps with the plaintiffs shall obtain the approval of the management body after consultation with the fourth floor council, as prescribed by Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the Rules of the 4th floor in order to operate the Piano Teaching business in the store of this case. The plaintiffs may seek for the prohibition of running the Piano teaching business at the store of this case on the ground that their business interests are actually infringed or are likely to be infringed upon by the defendant who did not undergo the above procedure. The plaintiffs' claims are with merit.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion that it is invalid as it infringes on the freedom to choose an occupation under the Constitution

(1) The argument

Article 12 (3) of the 4th floor Rule is to prohibit a new business entity's business activities from sources, the main contents of which are the protection of the right to vested in the existing business entity, and is invalid because it infringes on the freedom of choice of occupation under the Constitution.

(2) Determination

The restriction on the type of business by the rules of the shopping mall is a matter belonging to the area of private autonomy and subject to the principle of freedom of contract. In addition, when the owner of a store, etc. wishes to change the category of business, it is nothing more than that it is required to obtain approval from the managing body through consultation with the shopping mall meeting, which is its autonomous group, and thus, it does not essentially restrict its business activities. The prevention of overlapping types of business is a realistic necessity in terms of the adjustment of mutual interests by promoting the convenience of neighboring residents' living, respecting the business interests of the relocated merchants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da42540, Dec. 26, 1997). Article 12 subparag. 3 of the rules of the fourth floor cannot be deemed null and void as infringing on the freedom of vocational choice

B. As to the assertion that the invalidation has been invalidated

(1) The argument

The instant rules and the rules of the fourth floor with respect to restrictions on the type of business, such as Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the 4th floor rules, have been invalidated by a luxious provision that is not actually used as the basis of restrictions on the type of business.

(2) Determination

As the right holder does not exercise his/her right over a long-term period, the principle of invalidation would no longer be permitted to exercise his/her right in a case where the other party, who is the obligor, has a legitimate expectation to believe that the right holder does not exercise his/her right. The right holder’s exercise of his/her right is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, which governs the entire legal order. The entries in the evidence No. 9 and No. 11 in the evidence No. 9 and No. 11 alone are difficult to recognize that the above rules and rules were not used as the basis for restricting the

C. As to the assertion that it is not the same type of business

(1) The argument

Although the plaintiffs are taking lessons at their stores, the type of business in the order of the plaintiffs Lee Young-young is an individual extracurricular, while the type of business in the business registration of the plaintiff Lee Young-jin is an Amino teaching school, while the defendant's business registration is a private teaching institute, and it cannot be viewed as a same type of business, and therefore Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the Rules of the fourth floor is not applied.

(2) Determination

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 30, Eul evidence 5, and Eul evidence 5, the business type of plaintiff Lee Young-young changed to a private teaching institute on June 23, 2005, the business type of plaintiff Kang Young-jin is the private teaching institute, the business type of plaintiff Kang Sejong-jin is the private teaching institute, and the defendant's business type is the private teaching institute.

According to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons, private teaching institutes, teaching schools, private tutorss, etc. regulate standards for facilities. However, it is difficult to regard “private teaching institutes” prescribed by the instant regulations and the rules of the fourth floor as being used separately from teaching schools, private tutors, etc. under the said Acts, and it is reasonable to regard that the aforementioned various types of teaching businesses are defined as a type of teaching businesses. Since both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s businesses are the same in that they are piano lessons, they should be viewed as the same type of business in the standards for interpreting the instant regulations and the rules of the fourth floor. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit

D. As to the assertion that the principle of good faith is violated

(1) The argument

It goes against the good faith principle to demand the defendant, unless the plaintiffs themselves have made a sale according to the four-story rules.

(2) Determination

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence 1-1-2 and the fact-finding of the X-A-2's total operation meeting of this court. The plaintiff Lee Young-young leased No. 7 of the building of this case on 1995, and purchased the fourth floor of the building of this case as at May 19, 197, and started the so-called No. 3 of the fourth floor of this case on 4th floor around September 2001. The damages transferred the so-called No. 4th class of the building of this case to the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the business.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are justified. The judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with this conclusion, so the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)