1. Compulsory execution against the Defendants’ Plaintiff based on the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2030729 Decided November 4, 2014.

Basic Facts

On November 3, 2009 and November 5, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into each of the following sales contracts (hereinafter “each of the instant apartment units”) and options contracts with the Defendants for each of the following apartment units (hereinafter “each of the instant apartment units”).

On November 5, 2009, the date of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the sale in lots: The total supply price of 109 Dong Dong-dong 1104: 328,180,000 won and the date of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the sale in lots: November 3, 2009: The object of sale in lots: the total supply price of 113 Dong Dong-dong 2002, Jung-gu, Incheon: 331,540,000 won to the Plaintiff by the expiration date of the occupancy designation period, and the Defendants agreed to apply the interest rate as set forth in the following table if the payment is delayed.

The Plaintiff, at the rate of overdue interest rate of 1 to 30 days, 5.96% per day of overdue interest rate of 1 to 5.96% per 31 to 90% per day of 8.96% per 31 to 90% per day of 13.96% per day of 91 to 180% per day of 14.96% from 181 to 15.96% per day of 180, after completing a usage inspection on the apartment of this case on October 26, 2012, he/she notified the Defendants of the occupancy designation period by setting the period from November 3, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

However, even after December 31, 2012, the expiration date of the occupancy designation period, the Defendants did not pay or occupy the remainder of the sale price and options construction cost.

The Defendants received loans from financial institutions and paid the intermediate payment pursuant to each of the instant sales contracts to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid on behalf of the Defendants the interest on the intermediate payment from May 17, 2010 to November 14, 2012 (hereinafter “alternative interest”) pursuant to each of the instant sales contracts.

On the other hand, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff’s false or exaggerated advertisement regarding each of the instant sales contracts as Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap10695.