2. Costs of appeal shall be borne individually by each party;

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Defendants and Nonparty D filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Ra20483 (Seoul Central District Court 2016da2585) on the provisional disposition of suspending the performance of duties, etc. The amount of litigation costs was determined on February 14, 2017 by the aforementioned provisional disposition order that confirmed that the amount of litigation costs that the Plaintiff, E, and F shall pay to the Defendants and D is KRW 124,79 (hereinafter “instant decision”). The said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Based on the instant decision, the Defendants and D filed an application for the seizure and collection order on the deposit claims against G with the Plaintiff, based on the sum of KRW 419,89,895 (=139,965 won for each obligee (i.e., principal KRW 124,799 KRW 15,166) x 3) of the amount claimed as Seoul Southern District Court 2017TTTT 6299, and the said order was served to G around that time.

C. On November 6, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 139,965, each total of the litigation costs and enforcement costs according to the instant decision, with the fact that “the Plaintiff provided each 139,965 won to the Defendants according to the instant decision, but the Defendants refused to receive it,” with the deposit account (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The summary of the defense is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff attempted to serve as the president or an officer as the commercial owner in relation to the operation of H the commercial building management body; and (b) the City/Do tried to coordinate with the E/F, Defendant B, the director of the management body, Defendant C, and the director of the management office, Seoul High Court No. 2014Ra20483.