1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2020 Chicago3042, Jun. 2020

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 24, 2018, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with C and D as to each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”). On August 27, 2018, the Defendant, C, and D entered into a lawsuit telephone (this court’s title was referred to as “instant protocol of compromise”) with regard to the instant lease agreement, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 4, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2018, Jan. 24, 2018 (hereinafter “instant protocol of compromise”).

B. Details of the change in ownership of the building of this case are as follows:

F. F. F. C. (1/2 equity) on August 11, 1992, 192, the date of the change, as the grounds for registration of the right holder, and on January 10, 2015, the entire inheritance F.C. (1/4 equity) on July 31, 2015 (1/2 equity) G (1/2 equity) (1/2 equity) on July 31, 2015 before the sale of F.C. (1/2 equity) on August 11, 2018, the total share of co-owners on May 2 B B, 2018 before the sale of the trust property on January 10, 2018, Co.,, Ltd. on May 2018, 2018, the trust property on May 30, 2018, reverted to the trust property on May 31, 2015, the trust property on March 20, 2018.

C. On May 21, 2020, the Defendant was granted the succeeding execution clause (hereinafter “instant succeeding execution clause”) to implement compulsory execution on the provisions of Article 3(3) of the Settlement Clause, among the conciliation protocol of this case by the senior court clerk E of the Seoul Central District Court.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 9, Eul's 1, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Of the conciliation protocol of this case’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, compulsory execution based on the instant succeeding execution clause granted by the Defendant as C or D’s successor with regard to Article 3(3) of the conciliation protocol of this case ought to be rejected due to the following (1) through (3).

① At the time of establishment of the instant protocol of conciliation.