1. The Defendant’s decision on the repair of defects in Busan District Court Branch 2014Gahap115 decided on the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The parties concerned are autonomous management organizations consisting of occupants of Busan Metropolitan Transportation Daegu Atel, and the plaintiff is an executor who constructed and sold the above officetel.

B. On January 13, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, the executor company in the Dong branch of Busan District Court, the Daesung Construction Co., Ltd., the Si Construction Mutual Aid Association, claiming the repair of the defects of officetels, and received a judgment in favor of the Defendant on July 24, 2015.

(Dasan District Court Branch 2014Gahap115 and hereinafter “instant defect repair judgment”). Afterwards, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 29, 2016.

(In Busan High Court Decision 2015Na54431, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da240437). C.

On April 19, 2016, the defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction by official auction with respect to the 13 officetels owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "officetel of this case") among Atels with the claim amount of KRW 416,786,940 as the title of the judgment on defect repair in this case with the Busan District Court's branch office located in Busan District Court. The defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction by official auction

4. There was a decision on commencing auction on 20.

(J) Busan District Court Branch B case) d.

On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 476,94,808 won (=572,763,003 won - KRW 95,768,768,195) remaining after the Defendant’s claim was transferred to Daesung Construction Co., Ltd. (= KRW 572,763,03 - KRW 95,768,195), among the orders of the judgment on the repair of defects in this case (as of December 9, 2016, the principal and interest) to the Defendant.

E. On December 13, 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the execution cost incurred at the above compulsory auction. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would withdraw the application for compulsory auction since it repaid the full amount of the obligation according to the judgment on the defect repair in this case, and refused to pay the said execution cost.