The costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs, Defendant C, and Defendant D are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that: (a) the Plaintiff purchased a 201 shop without consenting to the matters on which the buyer imposed a restriction on the type of business; and (b) the Defendant D, who used the 201 shop with the consent of the Defendant C and Defendant C, who purchased the 201 shop from the I, did not likewise bear a restriction on the type of business.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In addition, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the restriction on the type of business, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant E, based on its reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) Defendant E bears the duty of restricting the type of business to be operated only as designated type of business; and (b) Defendant E bears the same duty of restricting the type of business; (c) Defendant E bears the same duty of restricting the type of business.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In addition, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles of the Supreme Court precedents concerning the restriction on types of business or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs, Defendant C, and Defendant D are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs and Defendant E are assessed against the Defendants E. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.