1. Of the decision of this Court C Indirect Compulsory Application case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, 51,90.

1. The facts below the beginning of the case are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, in addition to each macroscopic evidence.

The Plaintiff is a co-owner of the first floor of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) No. 114 (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff shop”) and holds the exclusive right of coffee and belier type of business with respect to the Plaintiff’s store (A. 1 and 3-1) and the Defendant is a co-owner of the first floor of the instant building No. 111 (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant shop”).

[A] From August 5, 2015, the Defendant opened “E” in the Defendant’s store from around August 5, 2015 to sell and operate the said product.

[A 3-1, 5-1, 5-3] 1. The respondent shall not engage in the business of selling coffee and beerer at the defendant's shop, or lease the whole or part of the above store for the purpose of running the sales business of coffee and beer.

2. The respondent shall not set up at the stores listed in the above 1. paragraph 1. machinery and apparatus that can cook, process and manufacture coffee and beer.

3. The respondent shall not display, keep and distribute advertising materials with the content of selling coffees and beer, display and display, display and display price lists with the selling prices of coffees and beer, and display and display the actual objects of coffees and beeras or its models, in addition to the stores listed in the above 1.1.

The Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for provisional injunction under this Court 2015Kahap331, and this Court accepted the above provisional injunction on March 2, 2016, and notified the following provisional injunction order:

(A) The Defendant approved the provisional disposition order on May 13, 2016, even in the case of the provisional disposition order No. 2016Kahap64, which was followed by the Defendant’s objection to the above provisional disposition order.

[A 3-2] On the other hand, the defendant notwithstanding the above provisional disposition order.