1. The Defendants’ compulsory execution pursuant to this Court Decision 2014No. 40131 against the Plaintiff is denied.

2. This.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife E entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants on the 180 square meters away from the factory of the 1st floor above the FF 180 square meters (hereinafter “factory of this case”).

(10 million won per month for rental deposit. (b) 1 million won per month.

As the Plaintiff did not pay rent, the Defendants filed a case of the delivery of a building No. 40131 proviso in this Court and received a favorable judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) from the Defendants on March 19, 2015.

C. On June 2, 2015, the Defendants: (a) filed an application for the enforcement of the order of 1983, 2015, with the title of execution; and (b) paid the Plaintiff the smuggling rent.

(Partial part shall be covered with a rental deposit of 10 million won, and the remainder shall be paid in installments).

On July 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15 million as a rental deposit, and paid KRW 1 million as a rent every month, and paid KRW 1 million each month from October 27, 2017 (including partial unpaid month). The lease contract related thereto was not drafted.

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence No. 9 of A, Evidence No. 2 of B, All purport of oral argument]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since compulsory execution under the instant judgment by the Defendants’ assertion was merely postponed, and the Plaintiff again delays rent of KRW 104,440,000 as of January 25, 2018, compulsory execution by the instant judgment shall be permitted.

B. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff continued to use the factory of this case by making an oral contract with the repayment of the overdue rent and entering into a new lease contract. Therefore, compulsory execution by the judgment of this case should be denied.

C. Although a new lease contract was not prepared, in full view of the fact that the rental deposit was increased, and that the rent was paid for two years, and that the new lease contract was concluded around June and July 2015, and that the Defendants’ rights under the existing lease contract are all the rights.