1. The Defendant’s red support of the Daejeon District Court 201Gadan2302 against the Plaintiff was removed from the building.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, the owner of the house and warehouse listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant house and warehouse”) against the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 201Kadan2302, Hongsung Branch Office 201Gadan2302. On August 16, 2011, the said court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “the instant ruling of recommending reconciliation”) with the following content, and the said ruling was finalized on September 2, 201.

[Case of Removal, etc. of Building by the Daejeon District Court 201Gadan2302]

1. The Defendant removed the instant housing and warehouse by April 30, 2012 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and deliver each part of the said land to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff shall pay 5 million won to the defendant simultaneously with the performance of the duty specified in paragraph 1 from the defendant.

3. If the Defendant fails to perform the obligation described in paragraph 1 by April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff’s obligation described in paragraph 2 ceases to exist.

(hereinafter omitted)

B. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff removed the instant housing and warehouse through the Yan Environment Industry Co., Ltd., and received delivery of the relevant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant did not perform the obligation to remove the house and warehouse of this case as stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the decision of recommending the settlement of this case. Since the obligation to pay money to the defendant (paragraph (2)) has ceased to exist pursuant to Paragraph (3) of the above decision, execution by the defendant's decision of recommending the settlement of this case against the plaintiff shall not be allowed unless there are special circumstances.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1 is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff would remove the said house and warehouse if only the instant house and warehouse were at the time of the decision of recommending the settlement of this case by April 30, 2012, unlike the foregoing decision provisions with the Plaintiff at the time of the decision of recommending the settlement of this case; and (b) the removal.