1. The Defendants are running real estate brokerage business at the stores listed in the attached list, or have a third party run real estate brokerage business.

In fact, the Plaintiff is the owner of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and four lots of F apartment commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”), and operates the real estate brokerage office in the above commercial buildings. Defendant B and C are the owner of the instant commercial buildings 102, and Defendant D is the owner of the instant commercial buildings, around July 2015, operated the real estate brokerage office by leasing No. 102 from Defendant B and C, and Defendant D is the owner of the instant commercial buildings. There is no dispute between the parties.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are running real estate brokerage business in violation of the Agreement on the Restrictions on Business Category of the Commercial Building in this case, and sought suspension of business, and thus, examined whether there exists a business sector-restricted agreement in the commercial building in this case.

2. Whether there exists an agreement for restriction on industry

A. It is reasonable to view that the buyer or transferee of the position of the shop or the lessee of the shop, in case where the building company constructed and sold the shop by setting the type of business by the store, has consented to the contractual obligation such as the restriction on the type of business agreed in the sales contract, etc. in the mutual relation to the shop occupants, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the transferee of the position of the buyer of the shop, lessee, etc. is obliged to comply with the mutual agreement on the restriction on type of business under the sales contract, etc. Therefore, any person whose business interest is infringed upon by the agreement on the type of business under the sales contract, etc. is entitled to claim the prohibition of infringement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da8044 Decided May 27, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da61179 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.) B.

Facts of recognition

When there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading is added, the following facts are recognized:

(1) The G redevelopment association, which is the redevelopment partnership of the instant commercial building, (hereinafter “instant partnership”), is the instant redevelopment association.