1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants filed an application against the Plaintiff for provisional disposition against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2016Kahap81230, and the said court rendered a decision as follows on November 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition order”) on the following (hereinafter “the instant provisional disposition order”), and omitted attachment of the attached list under the instant provisional disposition order.

The instant decision was served on November 30, 2016 on the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff shall allow the Defendants and their agents to peruse and copy (including the reproduction of a photographic and mobile storage device) the books and documents in the separate sheet (including the files, if they are kept in the computer file form) within business hours (09:0-18:00) excluding legal holidays at the Plaintiff’s headquarters (Seoul Gangnam-gu, 11 floor) from three days after the date of receipt of the instant decision.

2. In the event that the Plaintiff violated the order under paragraph (1), the Plaintiff shall pay 500,000 won per day from 10 days after the date on which he was served with the written notice of the decision to the Defendants.

B. The Defendants filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for granting an execution clause on the ground that the Plaintiff refused the Defendants’ request for the perusal and inspection in violation of the instant provisional disposition order, and the administrative officer of the said court granted an execution clause on May 8, 2017 and June 27, 2017 regarding the indirect compulsory performance (hereinafter “instant execution clause”).

C. On October 28, 2017, the Defendants, based on the executory exemplification of the instant provisional disposition decision, received a seizure and collection order as to the claims owned by the Plaintiff against E by the Seoul Central District Court 2017TT1789.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts not clearly disputed, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff provided all of the documents owned by the plaintiff to the defendants to allow them to inspect and copy them, and some of the documents requested by the defendants.