1. The plaintiff of the defendants is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Kadan120856 delivered on October 25, 2005.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 26, 2005, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and D as Seoul Central District Court 2005Kadan120856 on April 26, 2005, and on October 25, 2005, the court rendered a judgment (hereinafter “the previous judgment”) that “the Defendant (referring to the Plaintiff and D) paid 6,00,000 won to each of the Plaintiffs, 50,000 won to Plaintiff C, and 5% per annum from May 3, 2004 to October 25, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date” (hereinafter “the previous judgment”).

B. On November 24, 2005, the original copy of the previous judgment of this case reached the service by public notice against the plaintiff and D on November 24, 2005, respectively, and reached the defendants on November 2, 2005, respectively.

C. As to the previous judgment of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not file an appeal, but D filed a subsequent appeal on April 4, 2006, and D concluded conciliation between D and the Defendants on September 7, 2006 in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Na10490, which was proceeding following D’s subsequent appeal.

On December 17, 2015, the Defendants filed an application for the collection order of the Plaintiff’s claim against the financial institution as the seized claim (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) with the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch of 2015TTT13785, by designating the previous judgment of this case as the executive title, and received a decision of citing it on December 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants’ damage claim against the Plaintiff, which was the basis of the previous judgment, was extinguished by ten years from December 8, 2015, which was the date when the previous judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the Defendants were subject to compulsory execution based on the previous judgment. Therefore, the Defendants asserted that they were not entitled to compulsory execution based on the previous judgment.

With respect to this, the Defendants are against this.