1. The defendant shall pay 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from March 17, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around October 194, 1994, C reconstruction association constructed and sold a commercial building on the ground E (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). Article 13 of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Commercial Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building within the scope of usage (sale, commuting, and medical facilities) designated for each shop, and the overlapping of the types of business between the tenant and the shop tenant shall be handled in consultation with each other, and it shall not involve any change in the use and type of business after the shop tenant.

(The contents are the same as those of paragraphs 10 and 13 of the Commercial Building Supply Notice.

The first floor of the shopping mall of this case was designated as a pharmacy at the time of sale, and F was sold in lots, and G was operated with the trade name "H" after purchasing it on November 28, 2001.

C. However, under subparagraph 109 of the instant shopping mall No. 109 and subparagraph 311 of the instant shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall No. 311”), the J brought a lawsuit against them, such as the defect of pharmacy business, G, Seoul Western District Court 2003Gahap1649, against them, such as the prohibition of business operation of the said pharmacy. On October 8, 2004, “10 only 101 when the sales contract was entered into for the shopping mall is designated as a pharmacy and the other store buyers are designated as a pharmacy so that they can not concurrently open the pharmacy, and the other pharmacy’s business violated the business restriction agreement stipulated in the sales contract.”

I appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, but even J, the lessee of the instant case No. 311, appealed on January 6, 2005, but withdrawn the appeal.

From the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2004Na80283) to July 26, 2005, the conciliation was concluded to the effect that "I closes a pharmacy in operation under 109 until December 15, 2005."

C. No. 311 of the instant case