1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

1. The Plaintiffs shall allow the Defendants, F or their agents to peruse and copy (including photographs and copies of computer storage media) the books, documents, and computer files listed in the attached list at the address of the Daegu-gu G and the International District Housing Association located in H for a period of 30 days from 2 days after the delivery date of the original copy of the instant decision, 09:0 to 18:00 each day, excluding holidays.

2. In a case where the plaintiffs did not perform their obligations under paragraph (1) during the above period, the plaintiffs shall pay the defendants and F 10,000,000 won per day of violation days to the defendants and F.

A. The Defendants and F filed an application against the Plaintiffs for provisional disposition on the inspection and copying of accounting books, etc. under the Seogu District Court Branch Decision 2018Kahap5019, and the said court rendered the following decisions on April 27, 2018 (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition order”) (hereinafter “the instant provisional disposition order”), and omitted attachment of the attached list in the instant provisional disposition order.

The instant provisional disposition decision was served on April 30, 2018 on the Plaintiffs.

B. The Defendants filed an application with the Busan District Court for granting an execution clause on the grounds that the Plaintiffs refused the Defendants’ request for perusal and copy in violation of the instant provisional disposition order. On June 27, 2018, the said court clerk granted the execution clause on the part of indirect compulsory performance (hereinafter “instant execution clause”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any), Eul evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was that most of the documents owned by the Plaintiffs were provided to the Defendants to be perused and copied, and the documents excluded or not disclosed by the Plaintiffs were mutually agreed with the Defendants to be disclosed in the future. Thus, it is nothing more than that of not allowing the perusal and copying of the documents.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are the same.