1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A leased No. 133 of the former E building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) during Ansan-si, and operated a coffee specialty with the trade name “F” from June 28, 2015, and Plaintiff B used No. 134 of the said building to operate a coffee specialty with the trade name “G” from January 23, 2014.

B. Defendant C is a person who is operating a restaurant under the trade name, “I” from October 9, 2014, by leasing Nos. 123 and 124, and Defendant D leased Nos. 129 and 130, respectively.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The buyers of the instant commercial building, claiming by the Plaintiffs, agreed to restrict the type of business by taking out the store in lots.

In addition, the buyer or the transferee of the status agreed explicitly or implicitly to abide by the trade restriction agreement in the sales contract.

The stores for which the plaintiffs are running business are designated is coffee specialty, and the stores for which the defendants are running business can not choose a type of business overlapping with the stores which are designated by the recommended type of business in addition to the designated type of business. Thus, the defendants cannot sell coffee.

Nevertheless, since the Defendants are manufacturing and selling coffee, the Plaintiffs seek payment of indirect compulsory performance when they violate the prohibition of coffee sales business and their obligations.

B. As to the existence and validity of a trade restriction agreement, it is reasonable to view that a building company constructed a commercial building to set the type of business for each shop and sell it in lots, and that a person who takes over the status of the buyer of the shop or lessee of the shop agrees to assume the duty of restrictions on the type of business agreed implicitly in the sales contract in the relationship with the shop occupants, barring any special circumstance.