A. On June 20, 2014 between the Defendant, D, and E, the settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit with the purport to order the Defendant to submit the F-based building (hereinafter “instant building”) in Busan Gangseo-gu, and to deliver the land G in Busan Gangseo-gu, and the protocol of conciliation was prepared.

B. On November 2, 2018, the court court clerk issued an executory exemplification with the plaintiffs as the successors of D as to the above protocol of compromise.

【Facts without any dispute, No. 1】

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion D’s wife operated the set by connecting the instant building and the first ground buildings adjacent thereto. After the settlement prior to the filing of the suit, the Plaintiffs leased and occupied the instant building from H, or occupied the instant building without permission.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are those who have succeeded to the possession of D after the settlement was established before the filing of the lawsuit, or who have taken over the debt of D before the filing of the lawsuit, and are the successors of D, the debtor under the protocol of conciliation.

B. As the Defendant’s assertion, even if H, the wife of D, linked to the instant building and its neighboring buildings and, after the settlement prior to the filing of the lawsuit, leased the instant building from H to possess it, or occupied the instant building without permission, such circumstance alone does not mean that the Plaintiffs are either the persons who succeeded to the possession of D after the settlement prior to the filing of the lawsuit, or those who assumed the obligation of D due to the settlement prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be seen as the successors of D, the debtor under the protocol of compromise.

3. The plaintiffs' claims are with merit.