1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the denial of compulsory execution as to Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8 of the Attached Settlement Clause as to the instant lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the 12th floor of D Building B located in Ansan-gu B and C (hereinafter “instant store”) from the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 23,000,000 (25,000,000 for the third year, and KRW 27,000,000 for the fifth year from the date of commencement of the lease business) and KRW 5 years from the date of commencement of the lease term business.

B. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to set the lease deposit amount of KRW 300,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 28,500,000 ( KRW 30,000,000 from August 1, 2015) and the term of lease from August 1, 2014 to July 30, 2016 to apply for the filing telephone damage in this court.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) a lease agreement entered into at the time.

On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as stipulated in the instant lease agreement, filed a lawsuit with the same content as indicated in the separate settlement clause (hereinafter “instant protocol of settlement”). D. The title of execution made by this court 2015Da147, and hereinafter “instant protocol of settlement”).

Around April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant store and operated a sports center until the date of the closing of argument, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his intention to enforce compulsory execution based on the instant protocol of conciliation, unless the instant store is ordered by May 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The compulsory execution based on the instant protocol of conciliation, which is the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, should not be permitted for the following reasons.

Since the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed or extended, it does not affect the execution of the protocol of compromise of this case.

B. The Plaintiff’s duty to deliver the instant store is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Defendant’s duty to return the lease deposit and to pay the purchase price of attached things, as well as the duty to repay necessary expenses and profit-making

(c).