1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 8,062,124 against the Plaintiffs and its related costs from July 3, 2015 to February 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2012, the Defendant entered into a subdivision contract (recontract) with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) with the following terms and conditions (hereinafter “instant contract”) and operated F by March 2015.

1) The Defendant is granted the right to use play education services, trade name, trademark, etc. from the instant company, and establishes and operates F, a branch of the instant company in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G. 2) The Defendant shall pay the instant company KRW 1 million to the instant company at the time of renewal of a contract every two million won for establishment and operation (in the event of conclusion of a contract or renewal of a contract), and the following termination date shall be determined as February 1, 2014; ② the management and operation fees (the trade name, trademark, etc. of the instant company) shall be paid KRW 600,000 per month, and the payment shall be made on the fifth day of each month from the following day of

B. On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiffs received a provisional seizure order with respect to the claim amounting to KRW 8,067,035 regarding the establishment and operation expenses and the management and operation fee claim claim amounting to KRW 8,067,035, which the instant company has against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”), and the said decision was served on the Defendant on January 3, 2013.

C. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs, based on the authentic copy of the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na80216, 2013Na80223 of the instant company’s Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na80216, 2013 or 80223, issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure collection order”) to transfer the instant provisional seizure to the original seizure against KRW 201,553,10, among the claims for establishment and operation expenses and management and operation fees against the Defendant, etc. of the instant company, and the said order was served on the Defendant on July 2, 2015, and became final and conclusive thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-4, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted provisional seizure of this case.