1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the court's reasoning for this case is as follows: (a) the defendant leased the whole second floor of the building of this case under an integrated contract with power of attorney around February 10, 2008, and concluded an individual lease contract with the owners of each shop on the real estate register around August 2009; and (b) the plaintiffs are deemed to have succeeded to part of the above individual lease contract; (c) as long as the owners of each shop share the second floor above the above individual lease contract with the area ratio of the second floor above the building of this case, each owner of the building of this case can not be deemed to have owned by each owner of the building of this case until the right of conclusion and termination of the lease contract for a specific area among all the second floor above the second floor above the common property jointly owned by the conclusion of the above individual lease contract (However, the above individual lease contract of this case is valid within the extent of direct agreement to be paid to the owners of the building on the real estate register as the size of each divided and adjusted unit.

Since the lessor of the jointly-owned property actually terminates the lease of the jointly-owned property as the termination of the lease agreement, the act of notifying the lessee of the rejection of the renewal shall be determined by the majority of co-owners' shares as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 265 of the Civil Act, which constitutes the act of managing the jointly-owned property. Even if the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to refuse the renewal to the Defendant on or around June 30, 2014, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs’ declaration of intention to refuse the renewal cannot be deemed valid unless there is any evidence to prove that the consent of the 1/2 equity right holder was obtained, and therefore, the lease of the second floor above the building of this case is maintained again on any different premise.