1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant's assertion against the plaintiff.

1. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the grounds for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance “1. Recognizing the facts recognized”), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

2. As to the main claim, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the pertinent provisions of the instant protocol of conciliation, which the Plaintiff wishes to deliver the building and the site of the instant case “where the payment of security deposit is overdue or the monthly rent is overdue for more than two years,” is attached to the execution condition of the protocol of conciliation, and the execution clause may be granted only by the presiding judge’s order (Articles 57 and 32 of the Civil Execution Act). The execution clause attached to the instant protocol of conciliation does not state the order of the presiding judge, and that the requirements for granting execution clause

The Civil Execution Act provides that the execution clause shall be granted upon the order of the presiding judge, only when the creditor proves the fulfillment of the conditions by a certificate, if the conditions are attached to the judgment or the execution of any other executive titles.

(See) Article 30(2) main text and Article 32(1) of the same Act. In light of such provisions, the meaning of “requirements” attached to the execution of judgment, etc. under the Civil Execution Act cannot be deemed identical to the concept of “requirements” under the Civil Act, and rather, it is limited to cases where a creditor must prove the fulfillment of such conditions for the execution of judgment, etc., which means cases where the occurrence of facts or the performance of duties under such conditions is mainly made by a creditor or a third party, and the case where only the debtor’s performance of duties becomes the content of conditions (see, e.g., so-called forfeited terms) should be construed as not including the above conditions.

The plaintiff, who is the debtor under the conciliation protocol of this case, is in default of the debtor's obligation to pay the deposit or the two or more rents.