beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant B was the owner of the second floor E-building No. 213 (hereinafter “instant store”) of the 2nd floor E-building (hereinafter “instant building”); Defendant C leased the instant store and operated a pharmacy with the name of “F pharmacy” from June 2016.
B. On January 21, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a premium contract with Defendant C to take over the instant store and pharmacy business (hereinafter “instant premium contract”) and paid each of the Defendant C the remainder payment of KRW 7,000,000,000,000,000 on the same day, and the intermediate payment of KRW 14,000,000 on January 24, 2017, and the remainder payment of KRW 49,00,000,000 on February 7, 2017.
C. On January 24, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B by setting a deposit of KRW 80,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,500,000, and the lease term of KRW 60,000 from February 7, 2017 to February 6, 2022 (60 months). The Plaintiff paid Defendant B the remainder of KRW 20,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 60,000,000 each on February 7, 2017.
Meanwhile, the store No. 119 of the first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “the store No. 119”) operated a pharmacy with the trade name “G pharmacy.” Upon the establishment of the F pharmacy in the instant store, the shop owners No. 119 filed an application for provisional injunction (U.S. District Court 2016Kahap10158, hereinafter “the instant provisional injunction”) on the ground that the Plaintiff infringed on Defendant C’s exclusive pharmacy business rights in the instant building guaranteed by designating the type of business at the time of selling the store No. 119, but it was difficult to recognize the preserved right to seek injunction on July 5, 2016.
The owners of the store No. 119 filed an appeal (Seoul High Court 2016Ra20840), but on November 11, 2016, it was decided on November 30, 2016.
E. The owner of the store No. 119 is the principal lawsuit of the instant provisional disposition against the Defendants.