1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the modification and addition of claims at the trial court, shall be modified as follows:

(e).

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Whether the lawsuit on the conjunctive claim part among the lawsuit of this case is legitimate and the defendants' defense prior to the main claim is determined

A. In the instant lawsuit, the exchange change in the part of the conjunctive claim is deemed legitimate. As such, in the instant lawsuit is deemed to be a combination between the additional consolidation of the application form and the withdrawal of the application form. Therefore, in a case where, after the final judgment on the instant lawsuit was rendered, the exchange change was made with the application form, and thereafter, the exchange change was again made with the application form, it constitutes a case where a lawsuit was withdrawn after the final judgment was rendered, and the same lawsuit was filed again (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1405, Nov. 10, 1987).

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendants against the Defendants seeking confirmation of the Plaintiffs’ obligation to restrict the category of coffee stores or the absence of a competitive obligation against the Defendants, but the first instance court ruled against the Plaintiff, and filed an appeal on May 31, 2019 when the lawsuit is pending, and sought a prohibition of any act that prevents the Plaintiffs from running their business directly or through a lessee at the O shop by either exchanging the lawsuit in accordance with the purport of the claim and the application for modification of the cause thereof on May 31, 2019.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs asserted that the above modification did not change the litigation in exchange, but the purport of additional modification. However, in accordance with the legal principle of “refluentness of litigation for confirmation of performance”, the plaintiffs stated that the purport of the claim is modified as a litigation for performance claiming the prohibition and prevention of interference with the plaintiff’s coffee sales store business.