1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff extended by this court against the defendants.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the premise facts is as stated in the “1. Basic Facts” of the first instance judgment, except for the following: (a) the reason for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (b) the “Maak-gu G” of the 2nd 12th Myeon in the first instance judgment as “Maak-gu H”; (c) the “a type of business was leased 107” of the 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 4rd 4rd 4rd 4rd 4rd 4rd 4rd 201.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. The legitimacy of a business prohibition and claim for damages based on the type-restricted agreement under the sales contract

(b) propriety of business prohibitions and claims for damages based on the management rules providing for business restrictions;

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The legitimacy of a contract for sale in lots and a claim for damages based on an agreement on the restriction on the type of business under the contract for sale in lots [Plaintiff's assertion] The Plaintiff himself designated the type of business from the selling company as a pharmacy and purchased it from 108, 109, and 115, and the F designated the type of business from the selling company to 107 bank, which is another store in the building of this case. Such an agreement on restriction on the type of business is binding on the Defendant B and the lessee who acquired the status of the buyer from F until the resolution of the management body of March 19, 2014.

Although the Defendants violated the above 107, they are engaging in the pharmacy business or the pharmacy business. Thus, they claim that the Defendants' prohibition of the business of the pharmacy and the Defendants' compensation for business losses suffered by the Plaintiff due to the tort committed by the pharmacy business.

[Dissentings by the Defendants] The Defendants explicitly stipulate that the restriction on the type of business in the sale contract is effective only before the establishment of the management body, so the obligation of the buyer to restrict the type of business in the sale contract is extinguished by the establishment of the management body, and even if not, the buyer is the buyer.