1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. The Defendants’ assertion to emphasize or add part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. The following grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “additional judgment” as to the assertion to be emphasized or added by this court.

▣ 제3쪽 4행의 “2010. 7. 1.”을 “2010. 7. 28.”로 고침 ▣ 제7쪽 17행 아래에 다음 내용을 추가함 『⑥ 분양계약의 당사자가 아닌 이 사건 건물의 관리소장이나 부동산 중개업자 등이 업종제한 약정에 대하여 알지 못하였다고 하여 업종제한 약정의 존부에 어떠한 영향을 미치는 것도 아니며, 일부 점포에만 업종을 지정하는 것도 가능한 이상 이 사건 건물의 다른 점포에 업종제한 약정이 없음을 근거로 이 사건 101호, 103-1호에 업종제한 약정이 존재하지 않는다고 볼 수도 없다.』

2. Additional determination

A. The defendants' assertion 1) The sales contract of the building of this case is a contract prepared in advance in order for the seller to enter into the contract with the buyer (Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter "the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions"). Since the seller did not explain the provision on the restriction on the type of business under Article 3 of the sales contract at the time of the sale, the above provision cannot be incorporated into the contract contents pursuant to Article 3 (3) and (4) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. Even if the above provision is incorporated into the contract contents, it is unfair to allow the buyer to place restrictions on his type of business on the ground that the seller was designated at the time of the buyer's sale. Thus, the above provision constitutes an unfair terms and conditions clause and becomes null and void.

3. Article 3 of the contract for sale in lots is an excessive restriction on the freedom of choice of occupation of buyers.