beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 5, 2001, the Defendant: (a) sold a unit E (hereinafter “instant store”) in an aggregate building of five underground floors and ten stories above ground (hereinafter “instant shop”); and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 6, 2002; (c) on the part of the indication of property in the sales contract, the term “facilities (business type)” is written as “more outdoor department”.
B. The Defendant, from November 11, 2002 to around May 2007 to November 201, leased the instant store to a third party for the purpose of sexual surgery, and from around April 201, from around April 2007 to around November 201, a mutual travel agent, “F” at the present store, by leasing the instant store as a travel agent.
C. G and H sold I and Jho (hereinafter “second shop of this case”) within the commercial building of this case from D on July 31, 2002, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 20, 202. Of the indication of the property for the sales contract, the term “facilities (type of business)” is public column.
The second shop in this case remains in a public room for a considerable period since the sale in lots. G and H leased to K around July 2003 and operated K to open and run the PC. On November 15, 2006, the plaintiffs leased to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs operated the business of opening the sexually outdoor department.
E. Around 2006, the Defendant filed an application for provisional injunction against the establishment of a member on the ground that the Plaintiffs had exclusive rights to engage in sexual intercourse and business in the instant commercial building, and that the Plaintiffs had infringed their own business rights by opening a sexual intercourse (this Court Decision 2006Kahap4004), and rendered a decision to dismiss the said application on January 11, 2007.
The defendant appealed against this (Seoul High Court Decision 2007Ra216), and the decision of the first instance on November 29, 2007, and the plaintiffs should not open and operate a sexual extracurricular member in the commercial building of this case.