1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs and the defendant are sectional owners of T Building, which is an aggregate building of the five-story above ground level 3rd underground floor located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for a provisional disposition prohibiting construction on the grounds that the Defendant intended to arbitrarily construct the common areas of the instant commercial building and received a partial decision of acceptance on September 27, 2012

(Seoul Central District Court 2012Kahap1878). (c)

On January 25, 2013, the above court approved the part that "the defendant shall not remove stairs from the underground second floor, the first floor, the first floor, the second floor above ground, the third floor above ground, and the third floor above ground of the commercial building in this case, and install new stairs, and shall not remove the outer walls, signboards, capitals, or alter the shape and location of the commercial building in this case, and if the defendant violates the above order, the part that "the defendant shall pay 100,000 won per day per each violation day to the plaintiffs" and the remaining part was revoked.

(Seoul Central District Court 2012Kahap2399, hereinafter referred to as "the instant decision"). The instant decision was finalized on February 8, 2013.

[Judgment of the court below]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Defendant violated the instant decision after the instant decision, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 118,200,000 (10,000 x 1,182) for indirect compulsory performance from February 12, 2014 to May 10, 2017, since the Plaintiff violated the instant decision by installing outer walls, signboards, carpers removal works, stairs removal works, and signboards.

B. Ex officio, the decision of indirect compulsory performance itself is an independent executive title, so it is sufficient that the execution clause is granted by proving the other party’s breach of duty in order to execute indirect compulsory performance ordered by the decision of indirect compulsory performance.