2. The Plaintiff’s assertion I and J guaranteed the Plaintiff’s right to exclusively operate the dental clinic at the Plaintiff shop in the instant commercial building, and the Defendant buyer consented to “the right to exclusively operate the dental clinic at the Plaintiff shop” and sold the Defendant store in lots.

The Defendants, contrary to the aforementioned agreement on the restriction on the type of business (hereinafter “instant agreement on the restriction on the type of business”), operated a dental clinic like the Plaintiff at the Defendant shop, or concluded a lease agreement therefor. As such, the Defendants are obliged to suspend the operation, etc. of the dental clinic at the Defendant shop and pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 8 million per month as damages for the period of violation of the obligations (from July 1, 2016 to the closure of the dental clinic operation).

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine states that “the buyer sets up and sells a specific business to the buyer” is basically meaningful to guarantee the buyer’s right to operate the pertinent business exclusively.

(2) In a case where a seller of a commercial building sells a commercial building by setting a type of business for each shop, the seller and the transferee of the shop agree to the buyer’s and the buyer’s status to assume the duty of restricting the type of business agreed in the sale contract clearly and explicitly in relation to the shop occupants, and thus, the seller is obliged to comply with the agreement on restricting the type of business between the parties.

Therefore, if a person who takes over the status of a store buyer, a tenant, etc. violates a contract of restriction on the type of business set forth in the contract of sale in lots, a person whose business interest is likely to be infringed is entitled to claim the prohibition of business of the same type of business in order to eliminate infringement.