1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is located in the 3, 4, and 5th floor in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.

1. The facts acknowledged by this court concerning this part of the basic facts are the same as the "1. Basic facts of the judgment of the court of first instance", and they are quoted in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. At the time of the sale of the Plaintiff store and the Defendant store, there was a business restriction agreement at the time of the sale, and Article 40 of the instant management rules also strictly limit the change of the business type. As such, the Plaintiff, who purchased the Plaintiff store designated as the beauty room business, seeks the prohibition of the business of beauty and beauty art business against the Defendant, who operates the beauty station and beauty room at the Defendant store designated as the sports facility.

B. Defendant 1) In the case of the instant commercial building, there was only type of business as to the part of the instant commercial building at the time of sale, and there was no type of business designation for the third floor where the Defendant’s store was located, and there was no provision on compliance with the designated type of business in the sales contract for the instant commercial building. Even according to the instant management rules, the meaning of “advertisement” does not extend to the third floor of the instant commercial building. The meaning of “advertising” as a sports facility and the designation of a type of business as a sports facility is not the same, and there was no indication expressed by the Defendant that he would be able to perform the duty of restricting the type of business at the time of sale of the instant commercial building. 2) The cosmetic room operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “cosmetic room of this case”) is not only the same type of business as the Plaintiff’s store’s “hedging” operated for its members, but also did not infringe the Plaintiff’s exclusive business rights.

3 The Plaintiff has accepted the “Hein business” in the same type of business as the “Hein business,” or the “Hein business” in the Defendant shop.

3. Consumed legal doctrine

(a)in the contract for sale, there shall be no provision for sector limitation;