The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the duty of occupational protection and duty of disclosure

A. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The court below’s judgment did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and the facts duly determined by the

(Article 432 of the same Act). (b)

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined as follows.

(1) The Defendant cannot be deemed to bear the duty to protect the type of business or the duty to protect the goodwill as the selling company for the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) who entered into a sales contract after the formation of the instant shopping district management body.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a duty of disclosure under the good faith principle to inform the Plaintiff, etc. of the lease agreement with AC (hereinafter “AC”) at the time of the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as a party to a sales contract who violated the obligation against the plaintiff etc.

(2) The resolution of the Representative Committee of the Commercial Building Management Body of this case, which changed the usage of AC and approved a lump sum lease, is legitimate. The Defendant’s use of part of the commercial building of this case to AC for purposes other than the originally designated type of business was in accordance with the aforementioned legitimate resolution of the Representative Committee of the Commercial Building Management Body, and thus, is not recognized as unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of prohibition of competition as the owner of the unsold commercial building.

(3) The instant case.