2. This Court shall suspend compulsory execution on September 11, 2017 by this Court.

A. At around May 200, the 16 co-owners of the “E”, who had been on the ground of 1,084 square meters in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, to implement the instant reconstruction project, removed the said apartment house and divided the site into D large 510 square meters and F large 574 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land number”) and the following (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above land”), among D land, one apartment unit (G Dong) with 16 households on the D ground, and one apartment unit (H Dong) with 18 households on the F ground, respectively.

B. 1) Project owners (i) entering into a contract with I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) around May 2002

B) The owner of the instant land provided I with the instant land to I, and I newly built the apartment in return, sold the apartment to the owner of the building, and the remaining generation entered into a rebuilding construction contract with the owner of the building to cover the construction cost and project expenses. 2) After the owner’s request, eight of the building owners, including J, etc., entered into a loan of KRW 600,000 with respect to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) for the purpose of securing a loan of KRW 600,000,000, with respect to the instant portion of land owned by each of May 3, 2003, the building owner completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage with the principal debtor I (hereinafter “the establishment of the instant mortgage”) and on May 6, 2003, jointly guaranteed the obligation of the I to K with the guarantee of the above loan obligations.

3) Around 2004, around 71.51% of the re-building construction was carried out, and the re-building construction was suspended due to shortage in funds. C. M, the representative of the owner of L Co., Ltd. (1) contracted the follow-up construction to L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) on March 10, 2004, however, five including N et al. among the owner of the building, raised an objection against L Co., Ltd’s status as L contractor.