1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8:

Of the building of 101 underground and 4th underground in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”), the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in nine persons, including E, Plaintiff (each equity 6/34), F, G, H, I, Defendant (each equity 4/34), J, and K (each equity 1/34), as of March 7, 2008 by the Gwangju District Court No. 41059.

B. On October 24, 2010, Defendant, K, and I appointed Defendant as the manager of the instant building.

[The sum of the above three shares at the time was 130/238 (Defendant 62/238 K 34/238 I 34/238)] (c).

Around January 15, 2011, the Defendant leased L Company Nos. 101-1 (hereinafter “instant store”) out of the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”) with a deposit of KRW 90,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,000,000, and the period from January 15, 201 to January 14, 201, under the same conditions (former two-years contract), and on January 15, 2013, the deposit was as is, and the period of KRW 3,850,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,850,000 from January 15, 2013 to January 14, 2014.

(hereinafter the above three leases are referred to as “the lease of this case”). D.

Since January 15, 2011, the Plaintiff’s share in the instant store was 27/238, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share in the rent of the instant lease.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the rent equivalent to his own share, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the following grounds.

1) The instant building consists of seven stores, including the instant store, and there is a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to each of the said seven stores. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may seek payment of the rent equivalent to his share, in one lawsuit, for the entire seven stores.