The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first and second points of contracts for the sale in lots, if there is no separate agreement on the meaning and scope of the category of business in question, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the following factors: the meaning of the category of business in advance; the business contents of the category of business generally implemented; and the classification standards of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table; rather than uniformly and uniformly determining the size of the building where the store is located; the degree of business district formation; and the situation of the neighboring type of business, etc.

(2) In light of the legal principles and records as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination that the coffee products constitute the Defendant’s main sales goods, and therefore, it is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant’s act of manufacturing and selling coffee products constitutes a violation of the instant business sector restriction agreement, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or omitting judgment.

2. In a civil trial on the third point, unless it conflicts with res judicata in principle, the facts acknowledged in a judgment on other civil cases, etc. are not bound, and the conclusion may vary depending on the difference between the parties' arguments, the degree of proof, and the method of attack and defense for each individual case, it is inevitable under the litigation system which is based on the principle of disposition right and pleading principle.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da81623 Decided February 13, 2014). Therefore, in the instant case where the Defendant’s ground of appeal differs from the Supreme Court Decision, and there is a difference between the two parties and the method of attack and defense submitted by the Defendant, the lower court’s conclusion is different from the foregoing Supreme Court Decision.