F Co., Ltd. entered into a sales contract with G on January 27, 2005 on the instant condominium H (hereinafter “H store”) as a seller of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building (hereinafter “instant condominium”), and set the designated type of business as a coffee store.

On November 15, 2017, the Plaintiff leased a H shop from I (the said I acquired the ownership of the H shop from G on June 16, 2018) and operates a coffee store with the trade name “J” from January 2, 2018.

On February 4, 2005, F Co., Ltd. entered into a sales contract with K Co., Ltd. and the instant condominium E (hereinafter referred to as “E store”) with the term "designated business type".

Defendant B acquired the ownership of a E shop on July 16, 2015, and on October 19, 2018, Defendant C leased part (66.74mm2) of the E shop to Defendant C, and Defendant C operated a coffee store with the trade name “L” from November 1, 2018, and suspended its operation on August 8, 2019 in accordance with the instant court’s provisional injunction order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 6, and the legal principles related to the establishment of the right to claim a prohibition of business as a whole, in case where the provisions for restriction of business are established in the contract for sale in lots, which scope of business should be restricted, whether the change of the type of business should be absolutely prohibited, or whether the change of the type of business should be permitted within a certain scope can be decided freely by the parties in accordance with the principle of private autonomy, and the permission, scope, procedure, etc. of the change of the type of business should be determined through a reasonable interpretation of the contract for sale. However, even in this case, it is meaningful that the parcelling-out

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da45496 Decided November 10, 2005). A building owner is a commercial building.