1. All the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal and the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim expanded from the trial are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the first claim against the Plaintiff, Appointed C, and D

A. Defendant 1) around May 30, 2008, pursuant to the reconciliation provision of this case, the president, auditor, and the Plaintiff, Appointed C, and D, respectively, appointed respectively as the president of the Federation of Store Owners, and the principal secretary, respectively, requested legal experts to establish the rules of the organization composed of all of the store owners of this case until December 31, 2008. Under these rules, the management company of this case was selected for the management of the commercial building of this case, and without any reason, the Defendant was not obligated to take effect with the consent of all of the store owners. However, in the process of the formation of the said rules, they agreed with the Defendant without any intention to perform the duty of settlement under the above reconciliation provision, and thus, they did not jointly and severally pay consolation money to the Plaintiff and the Defendant without any mental suffering to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, 2007Ra2056 case, and the Seoul Central District Court’s 208Ra2067 case, and the Defendant did not jointly pay consolation money to the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. Determination No. 49, No. 2-6, No. 12, No. 23-3, and No. 38-3.