A. On March 29, 2017, the Defendants filed an application with the Plaintiffs for a provisional injunction against disturbance with this court as of March 29, 2017, and on May 11, 2017, the Defendants: (i) collected trees on each road listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs”) within seven (7) days from the date of receiving the notification of the instant decision; (ii) removed ground water; and (iii) prohibited the Defendants from performing any act obstructing the Defendants’ passage of each road of this case. (ii) The Plaintiffs received a decision by the order that the Defendants pay to each of the Defendants the money calculated at the rate of KRW 100,000 per each of the Plaintiffs.

(hereinafter “instant decision”). (b)

Notwithstanding the decision of this case, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants interfered with the passage of each road of this case and filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate on May 17, 2018 with Busan District Court Branch of Dong Branch of Busan District Court for the amount of KRW 138,200,00 for indirect compulsory performance according to the decision of this case. On May 18, 2018, the said court seized each of the above real estate on May 18, 2018 and rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction of each of the above real estate.

C. On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application with this court for the suspension of compulsory execution against the order to commence compulsory execution of the instant real estate auction as to June 4, 2018. On June 15, 2018, this court rendered a decision to suspend compulsory execution based on the original copy of the instant decision until the pronouncement of the instant judgment, subject to the offer of security.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs had already collected trees and removed the ground trees above each of the roads of this case before the decision of this case, and even after the decision of this case, the defendants did not interfere with the passage of each of the roads of this case.