The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the authenticity of the evidence No. 5-1 to 96 (each charter contract) by the testimony of the non-party to the first instance trial witness. In full view of the testimony of the witness and the appearance, structure, form, and content of the above contract, the establishment can be sufficiently recognized and even if the lease term under the charter contract expires, it can be used as the material for fact-finding of the charter contract. Therefore, the court below did not err in the rules of evidence as pointed out in the measures to consider each of the above documentary evidences as the material for fact-finding.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in order to operate public bath in the judgment of the court below, the court below determined, based on the evidence, that the size of the underground floor of the building of this case is about 1,500 square meters as the area of the underground floor being legitimately occupied and used by the non-party corporation by purchasing part of the underground floor of the building of this case and leasing it individually from its owners, and the remaining 30 stores size totaling 117.33 square meters from the house of the non-party corporation 1,50 square meters. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable,

On the third ground for appeal

Props, roof, outer walls, basic structures, etc. necessary for maintaining the safety and appearance of a building in an aggregate building are structural parts provided for the common use of all or some of the sectional owners, which do not constitute the object of sectional ownership. Whether the outer wall, which constitutes the framework of the building, is provided for the public use of all or some of the sectional owners, should be determined by whether it is necessary for maintaining the safety and appearance of the whole building, and the outer wall is the common use area, which is combined with the outer wall.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the outer wall of the judgment on which the signboard of this case was affixed based on the facts admitted by the evidence is just and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, or omission of judgment as pointed out.

In addition, in light of the record, the defendant's assertion in each of the preparatory documents dated November 5, 1990 and May 7, 191 as to the attachment of the signboard of this case, the defendant obtained the consent of the sectional owners who held the right to share the common areas of the building of this case at the time, and thus the attachment of the signboard is justifiable, and it does not appear to be the purport that the outer wall in the decision to which the signboard of this case was attached is the part of exclusive ownership of the plaintiff or that the plaintiff has the right to consent to the exclusive use or to any other use. Therefore, there is no error of incomplete deliberation

All arguments are without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff filed an appeal concerning the claim for damages among the judgment below, but the ground of appeal does not clarify the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this part of the appeal is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)