1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on May 24, 2012 by the Seoul Western District Court 2012 tea3097, which was enforced on May 24, 2012.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s establishment and the Plaintiff’s appointment of executive officers, including the Defendant, are the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association that implements a housing redevelopment project in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 119,881 square meters (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”), and completed the registration of incorporation on March 27, 2009 by obtaining authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant authorization of establishment”), and on April 6, 2009.

On March 27, 2009, on which the authorization of this case was issued, D on March 27, 2009, each of the Defendant, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, K, and L was appointed as the Plaintiff’s director, M, and N as the Plaintiff’s auditor.

(2) The term of office of each of the above officers is two years from the date on which each of the officers is appointed, and the term of office is two years from the date on which one president of the partnership, five to ten directors, two to three auditors.

(Article 15, paragraphs 1 and 3). (b)

The number of owners of land, etc. (the so-called "resident joint countermeasure committee" that criticized executives of major establishment) in the rearrangement zone of this case, such as an administrative litigationO on authorization for establishment, filed a lawsuit against the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "head of Seodaemun-gu") seeking revocation of the authorization for establishment of this case (Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap16749), and the Plaintiff participated in the head of Seodaemun-gu.

On February 17, 2010, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a ruling that the establishment authorization of this case is revoked, and on the same day, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a ruling that "the validity of the establishment authorization of this case is suspended until the appellate court rendered a judgment (Seoul Administrative Court 2009 A1300)."

However, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2010Nu9572) rendered a judgment on December 10, 2010 to the effect that “the above first instance judgment is revoked and the instant authorization for establishment is not defective,” and the judgment became final and conclusive as the withdrawal of the appeal thereafter.

(D) The case of revocation of the authorization for establishment is referred to as "the case of revocation of the authorization for establishment".