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. Plaintiff A is the owner of Seosung-si G (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) No. 112, and Plaintiff B is the owner of the instant commercial building No. 113, and Plaintiff C runs the pharmacy business with the trade name “H pharmacy” from Plaintiff A and B as “H pharmacy.”
B. On July 16, 2006, Plaintiff A and B agreed to designate the designated type of business as a pharmacy and to operate the designated type of business as a designated type of business with regard to the designated type of business, when the sales contract is sold in lots from the I and J (hereinafter “I”) as the owner of the instant commercial building.
C. On the other hand, K purchased No. 206 of the instant shopping district on November 15, 2012 at the court L auction procedure, and acquired ownership, sold it to Defendant D and E on May 31, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 5, 2013 in Defendant D and E’s name.
After that, Defendant D and E divided the above No. 206 and No. 208 on August 22, 2013, and Defendant F carries on the pharmacy business from September 2013 to “M pharmacy”. Defendant D and E leases the above No. 208 from Defendant D and E to “M pharmacy.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-2, and 3-1, 2-4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment thereon
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 that the seller of the instant commercial building gave Plaintiff A and B an exclusive status as to the business of the Plaintiff, and K or the Defendants agreed to allow the Plaintiff to comply with the agreement by purchasing No. 206 prior to the instant commercial building or leasing No. 208, which was split out in No. 206 prior to the split-off, when they knew or could have known the obligation to comply with the agreement on the restriction of the business sector of the instant commercial building.
I would like to say.
Accordingly, Defendant D, E, and Defendant F, the owner of No. 208, are designated by the plaintiffs from No. 208 to No. 112, 113.