The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

The Plaintiff’s revocation portion is against the Defendants.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the case is the case where the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for the prohibition of the cafeteria business and the indirect compulsory performance (payment of one million won per day) based on the title of execution ordering the omission, by asserting that the Defendants had been sold in lots by the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff may exclusively operate the cafeteria business in the apartment-type factory, which is an aggregate building, in violation of the agreement on the restriction of business sector, and that the Defendants had been engaged in the cafeteria business in violation of the agreement on the restriction of business sector.

The judgment of the court of first instance accepted the defendants' application for prohibition of a cafeteria business and indirect compulsory performance ordering payment of KRW 400,000 per day against the defendants, and dismissed the remaining claims. The defendants appealed against the part against which they lost.

나. 전제된 사실관계 【증거】갑1의 1, 2, 갑2의 1, 2, 3, 갑3의 1, 2, 갑4의 1, 2, 3, 4, 갑5, 6, 10, 갑11의 1에서 12, 갑16, 17, 을1의 1, 2, 을2, 을3의 1, 2, 을4, 6, 7, 을8의 1, 2, 3, 을13, 14, 15, 증인 F, G과 변론 전체의 취지 (1) 원고의 116호 점포에 관한 구분소유권 취득 ㈎ 원고는 2003. 1. 20. ㈜하이앤드로부터 안양시 동안구 D 외 1필지에 있는 아파트형 공장인 E 중 에스비 116호(350.41평형으로 전용면적이 747.01㎡이다, 이하, ‘116호 점포’라 한다)를 분양대금 1,296,488,000원에 매수하면서 업종형태를 ‘구내식당’으로 약정하였다. ㈏ 원고는 2003. 3. 무렵부터 ‘H’이란 상호로 식당 영업을 하다가 2011. 6. 무렵 I에게 116호 점포를 임대하였고, 그 이후 임차인 I이 ‘J’라는 상호로 식당 영업을 하고 있다. (2) 피고 B의 102호 점포에서의 식당 운영 ㈎ K는 2003. 7. 2. ㈜하이앤드로부터 E 에스비 102호(별지 목록 제1항 기재 건물, 85.61평형으로 전용면적이 182.52㎡이다, 이하, ‘102호 점포’라 한다)를 분양대금 316,779...