1. The Defendant’s payment order for the Defendant’s compensation for damages against the Young-gun District Court of Gwangju District 2012 tea 218, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. From November 9, 2011, the Plaintiffs were the persons operating the Taekwondo hall in the name of “E” on the fourth floor of the building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) from around November 9, 201, and the Defendant was granted a license to operate a franchise store in the name of “G” with “G” as a partner business with F and Dong business, and operated a mutual reading room on the third floor of the instant building from September 5, 201.

B. On July 31, 2012, the Defendant filed a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Defendant on July 31, 2012, ordering the payment of KRW 40 million, which is a part of the payment order, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s performance of noise prevention obligation formally causes damage to KRW 218 million in total, including KRW 48 million in reading room business losses and KRW 170 million in interior, due to the Plaintiff’s formal performance of noise prevention obligation. On August 31, 2012, the court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) jointly and severally with the Defendant on July 31, 2012, ordering the Defendant to pay KRW 40 million in total and KRW 20 million in total from the date following the delivery of the original copy of the above payment order to the date of full payment. The above order was served on the Plaintiffs on August 16, 2012, which became final and conclusive on August 31, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs raised an objection that the defendant side suffered damage to the operation of the reading room due to noise generated from the plaintiffs' Taekwondo ground, and the plaintiffs performed soundproof construction work three times from September 30, 201 to March 31, 2012. Nevertheless, as the defendant side again raised an objection due to noise, the plaintiffs raised a fourth soundproof construction work between H, the representative of the head office of the reading room, and J, the owner of the building of the building of this case.