1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims added at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is the plaintiff.

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts are as follows, and this court’s explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, except for the addition of “A evidence No. 34, B No. 44, and 47” to the grounds for recognition as follows, and as such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 11 of the decision of the first instance court is added to “The other side of the commercial building of this case” (hereinafter “the other side of the commercial building of this case”).

Part 5, part 17, and 18 of the decision of the first instance court, “a new escalator is installed on the south side of the commercial building of this case” means “a new escalator is installed on the center of the commercial building of this case (hereinafter “instant central escalator”).”

Part VII, 14 through 19 of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

Plaintiff

B/M filed a complaint that the defendant occupied the common area and interfered with the business by force, and the defendant was prosecuted for the crime of obstruction of business and damage to property.

In the first instance trial, the Defendant was acquitted of a fine of two million won for the crime of destroying and damaging property, and of interference with business.

[Sawon District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 317, 2016 High Court 43(combined)] Accordingly, both the defendant and the prosecutor appeal, and the trial of the appellate court is pending.

(C) Around November 16, 2011 to March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to pay penalty of KRW 202,00,000 to the Defendant, since the Plaintiff violated the obligation to guarantee the business of exercising the central stairs entrance under Article 3(5) of the instant Convention by filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for damages (Seoul Central District Court 2016Gahap795), and that the Plaintiff is liable to pay penalty of KRW 202,00,000.

In this regard, the first instance court dismissed that there is no benefit in the protection of rights in the lawsuit for the claim for penalty from November 16, 201 to December 14, 2012. The claim for penalty from December 15, 2012 to January 26, 2013 is judged to be lost in the preceding lawsuit.