1. The part of the plaintiffs' claim for indirect compulsory performance against the defendant corporation's own nature is dismissed.

2. The defendants are the defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. The Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building (hereinafter “instant building”) is an aggregate building of the 15th floor above the 3rd floor above the ground and E (Gu apartment-type factory).

B. Plaintiff A is the sectional owner of the instant building No. 103-1 (hereinafter “instant 103-1”); Plaintiff B is a person who, on July 1, 2010, operates a coffee specialty with the trade name “F” by leasing the said store from Plaintiff A.

C. Defendant Jinsung Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is the sectional owners of No. 101 (hereinafter “instant 101”) of the instant building, and Defendant C is a person who, on February 29, 2016, operates a coffee store with the trade name “G” by leasing the said store from the Defendant Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including each number, unless the number has been otherwise specified; hereinafter the same shall apply) or video, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was at the time of sale, which was designated and sold as “culp store” type, and the instant 101 was designated and sold as “licensed real estate agent’s office” type at the time of sale.

If the sales of a commercial building, such as the instant building, was limited to the category of business at the time of the sale of the commercial building, the owner of the said store is unable to engage in the business in violation of the designated type of business, barring special circumstances. The Defendants are engaged in businesses other than the designated type of business and, in particular, in the business of the c

Accordingly, since the plaintiffs' right to operate a store owned or operated by them is infringed, the defendants should not engage in the business of manufacturing and selling coffee or allow a third party to do the above business.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is only the indication of the type of business on each sales contract of the building of this case.