1. The Defendant’s decision is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap46875 Decided July 19, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 4, 2010, the Defendant leased the deposit amount of KRW 120,000,000 from the Plaintiffs Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant officetels”) to the Plaintiff, and thereafter resided therein.

B. After the termination of the above lease agreement, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs on March 2013 (2013Gahap46875) with the Seoul Central District Court (2013Gahap46875), and was sentenced to a concurrent performance judgment on July 19, 2013 to the effect that “the instant officetel shall be handed over at the same time with the payment of KRW 120 million as the deposit,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

However, the defendant has resided in the instant officetel without receiving the above deposit due to the reasons of the plaintiffs.

C. After doing so, from August 2016, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant negotiated on the amount of refund of deposit from around August 2016, and reached an agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant on November 7, 2016, regarding the amount of refund as KRW 75 million.

A CD

D. According to the above agreement, the Plaintiffs transferred KRW 60,00 to the Defendant on the day of agreement.

E. On November 27, 2016, the original scheduled date, and around December 15, 2016, the Defendant left the instant officetel without returning the two keys, and moved again to the instant officetel on or around March 2017.

(B) The Defendant applied for compulsory auction against the instant officetel based on the above 2013Gahap46875 Decided November 3, 2017, when the agreement was rescinded due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to pay the remainder of the remainder.

G. Meanwhile, on December 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs deposited the remainder KRW 15 million with the Defendant as the principal deposit.

H. On March 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the instant officetel’s order against the Defendant to deliver the instant officetel to the Plaintiffs by April 30, 2018, and issued a compulsory adjustment decision.