1. The Daejeon District Court 2009Gaso84227 decided to recommend reconciliation in the case of the lease deposit claim between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim of return of deposit for lease (2009 Ghana84227) with the Daejeon District Court. On September 21, 2009, the Plaintiff received a decision of recommending settlement (hereinafter “decision of recommending settlement of this case”) from the Daejeon District Court as follows, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 10, 2009.

The defendant shall pay KRW 9,00,000 to the plaintiff immediately after the plaintiff installs an outdoor stairs connected to the rooftop B housing in Daejeon Jung-gu (the stairs shall be installed at the same level as the outdoor stairs of neighboring houses constructed by the plaintiff). If the defendant delays the payment of the above money, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of installation of the outdoor stairs to the day of complete payment shall be paid.

B. On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to notify the date of construction work (10 days from the commencement date of construction) to the Defendant for the installation of outdoor stairs, but the Defendant failed to install the Plaintiff’s outdoor stairs on the ground that the decision of recommending settlement in this case is unreasonable.

C. The neighboring housing [Segu Daejeon-gu C] built by the Plaintiff was built as outdoor steel stairs.

On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sought cooperation from the Defendant to again perform the said construction work. However, the Defendant asserted and rejected installation of outdoor stairs together with a brick warehouse and prevented the construction thereof. Accordingly, the Defendant did not pay KRW 9,000,000 to the Plaintiff according to the decision of recommending reconciliation in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the plaintiff provided performance with respect to the duty of installation of outdoor stairs according to the decision on the recommendation for settlement of this case, and the defendant clearly rejected it. Thus, the plaintiff was satisfied the condition of suspension of execution clause against the decision on the recommendation for settlement of this case.

Therefore, this case.