1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant is the first underground floor and the second commercial complex B of the fourth floor located in Daejeon Seo-gu.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Part 2. Part 8: “The instant shopping mall” in Part 10 of Part 2, which reads “the instant shopping mall” as “the 1st underground floor and the 4th ground-based B commercial complex (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon,” the “Korea Investment Trust from Korea” in Part 2, 18, and 19, respectively, as “the construction of Pungan Construction from Korea Investment Trust”.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is running a bank business in the instant commercial building from April 2012 on which the Plaintiff agreed not to sell other financial institutions in the instant commercial building and was aware of the fact that the sales contract was concluded. This is in violation of the trade restriction agreement in the sales contract, and thus, it shall not conduct the above business activities.

B. In order to seek the prohibition of business on the ground of the existence of a business sector restriction agreement between the buyers, there should be a business sector restriction agreement between the buyers and each buyer of the commercial buildings. This does not apply to the commercial buildings of this case. Moreover, the public announcement of the commercial buildings of this case contains the phrase “the overlapping of the business type of the sale store is not all involved by the company and not responsible,” and the change of business type can be freely achieved through the change of the purpose of use on the collective building ledger. In fact, some of the occupants of the commercial buildings of this case are running a business overlapping through the change of use, and there is no objection from the buyer at the time of reporting the change of use of 33 of the 72 commercial buildings of this case.