1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs hold claims against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) based on the judgment in the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Gahap10421, supra.

B. On August 5, 2008, the non-party company entered into an agency service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendant, stating that it will perform all duties related to the construction project of the apartment unit in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government after being entrusted with such duties and receive service fees.

At the time, the non-party company received the “amount equivalent to 30% of the amount invested by the non-party company in accordance with the purchase of land, construction, authorization and permission process, etc.” from the Defendant within three months after the authorization was granted (Article 7 of the instant service contract) and agreed to receive the Defendant’s association members the “amount of KRW 15 million per household (excluding value-added tax)” in terms of business promotion expenses.

(Article 8(1)(c) of the instant service contract.

On December 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs received a seizure and collection order (Seoul Southern District Court 2013TTT24884) with respect to the service payment that the non-party company will receive from the Defendant with the execution bond based on the above judgment as the execution bond, and the above order was served on the Defendant on January 6, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, and 3's statements (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the service payment claims against the defendant of the non-party company asserted by the plaintiffs, the plaintiff Gap and the 113,391,967 won were ordered to collect each collection order. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above collection amount and damages for delay to the plaintiffs who are the collection creditors.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. On December 16, 2011, Nonparty Company agreed with the Defendant not to file any civil or criminal lawsuit related to the instant service agreement with the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' objection.