1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2.As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by the Ulsan District Court 2017 Chicago83

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 23, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking costs of manufacturing motor vehicle parts (Ulsan District Court 2016Kadan27039) with the Plaintiff, and the conciliation was concluded as follows.

(hereinafter “instant protocol of mediation”). 1. The Plaintiff shall pay 20 million won to the Defendant by March 10, 2017.

2. The Defendant shall deliver ten gold-type 10 to the Plaintiff by March 10, 2017.

3.Paragraphs 1 and 2 are concurrent performance relationships.

4. The defendant shall waive the remaining claims.

5. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne respectively;

B. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant adjusted the penalty to be delivered to the Plaintiff by the Defendant on seven occasions according to the instant protocol of mediation, and agreed to pay KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). C.

The Defendant delivered seven gold-types to the Plaintiff on May 2, 2017 according to the instant agreement, but the Plaintiff delivered the same year to the Plaintiff.

5. 25. 25. The Defendant returned this to the Defendant on the ground that the instant protocol of mediation is not a gold sentence consistent with this case.

On May 29, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for seizure and collection of claims with the Plaintiff, the third obligor, the Busan Bank, the Gyeongnam Bank, the Industrial Bank of Korea (Seoul District Court Branch Branch of Dongsan District Court 2017 Other Bonds 4270), with the original copy of the instant conciliation protocol as executive title.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9, the purport of the pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the instant protocol on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the price and the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the penalty to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not provide due performance for consideration. Therefore, compulsory execution pursuant to the instant protocol on the grounds that compulsory execution pursuant to the instant protocol is denied, or the instant protocol on the grounds that the agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant after the instant conciliation, lost the capacity of execution as executive title, and the instant agreement