1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the court's decision to this case, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Additional determination by this Court

A. The Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff prepared a written agreement with the Defendant on April 25, 2016, and agreed from the Defendant to suspend the time of payment of liquidation money until the complete sale of the said commercial buildings instead of obtaining the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on 37 units in order to secure the claim for the liquidation money,” and that on October 17, 2015, the general meeting of partners held on October 17, 2015, made a resolution to determine the time of payment of liquidation money by the whole sale of the unsold commercial buildings, so long as the unsold sale remains, the Defendant’s obligation of liquidation money still did not reach the due date.”

The above assertion made by the defendant in the court of first instance does not differ from the contents of the defendant's claim as asserted by the defendant. While examining both the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance (7-9), the defendant's above assertion is rejected, and the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiffs' claim is justified

B. The defendant asserts that "on the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment of the preceding case (Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap12014 case) where the plaintiff claims part of the liquidation amount of this case, the defendant received part of the collection amount by obtaining a decision of the Seoul Eastern District Court to seize and collect the collection order, and therefore, the amount of the liquidation amount of this case to be received by the plaintiffs should be deducted from the liquidation

However, only with respect to the remaining amount which the plaintiffs deducted the amount equivalent to the liquidation amount claimed in the preceding case, it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit in this case is filed, and the above collection amount is declared a provisional execution.