1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) except where “ September 1, 2013” was used as “ September 1, 2003”; and (b) Defendant D’s “Defendant D” as “D,” the three-dimensional eight-eight-eight-eight-eight-eight-eight-eight-eight-h and nine-nine-party 5 of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the time when the plaintiffs alleged that the commercial buildings of this case were sold in lots, the store No. 104 was designated as "real estate brokerage business", and the store No. 102 as "business", and each type of business was assigned to the plaintiffs and the defendant. Since each of the above stores was transferred before the plaintiffs and the defendant, the defendant must observe the above designated type of business and not operate "real estate brokerage business", which is not the designated type of business

Nevertheless, the Defendant, however, has leased 102 stores to D to operate the “real estate brokerage business” and has the intent to operate the “real estate brokerage business” in the said stores in the future. Therefore, the Plaintiffs seek prohibition against the Defendant from running the “real estate brokerage business” at the 102 store.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant commercial building was sold in lots only within two categories, namely, “living convenience facilities” and “medical facilities.” Among them, the store No. 104 was sold as “medical facilities,” and there is no type of business designated as “real estate brokerage business,” and thus, the store No. 104 cannot operate “real estate brokerage business.”

On the other hand, the store No. 102 was sold to the "living convenience facilities" and the "real estate brokerage business" is included in the living convenience facilities, so the store can operate the "real estate brokerage business" in 102.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to respond to the claim of the Plaintiffs, and instead, sought a prohibition of running the “real estate brokerage business” at the 104 shop against the Plaintiffs as a counterclaim.

3. Determination

A. The owner of the relevant legal doctrine constructs a commercial building and types of business by store.