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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”) is a person operating a G pharmacy in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant pharmacy”), and the Plaintiff A is a deceased’s wife, Plaintiff B, Defendant C’s son, and Defendant D’s son.

B. As the Deceased died on June 1, 2015, the Plaintiffs and Defendant C jointly succeeded to the Deceased.

C. On June 3, 2015, Defendant C comprehensively transferred to Defendant D the rights and obligations with respect to the instant pharmacy on behalf of the heir.

(hereinafter “this case’s acquisition agreement”). On the same day, the report on the discontinuation of the deceased’s name and the registration of the establishment of Defendant D’s name was completed with respect to the instant pharmacy.

At the time, Article 21-2 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act on the succession to the status of a pharmacy founder was enforced, and thus, the transferor was also transferred the pharmacy by reporting the closure of the business, and the transferee was also transferred the pharmacy by completing the registration of establishment.

Defendant D completed the closure report on November 3, 2016 on the instant pharmacy.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs and Defendant C, upon the death of the Deceased, jointly inherited the business rights of the instant pharmacy pursuant to the statutory inheritance portion (Plaintiff A3/7, Plaintiff B, and Defendant C 2/7).

However, on June 3, 2015, Defendant C transferred the instant pharmacy’s operating rights to Defendant D without the consent or delegation of the Plaintiffs, and then divided the profits of Defendant D and the instant pharmacy.

Furthermore, on October 31, 2016, the Defendants served a copy of the complaint of this case on November 31, 2016, and filed a report on discontinuance of business as to the instant pharmacy, and continued to operate the same business with the same trade name as the instant pharmacy from the building adjacent to the instant pharmacy, thereby infringing on the instant pharmacy’s business rights.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate Plaintiff A for damages caused by tort = KRW 2,384,813,653 of the instant pharmacy’s operating right x Plaintiff A.