1. On May 3, 2018, Jyang-si District Court Decision 2017Da34453 decided against the Defendant’s Plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs on the claim for management expenses (2017Gau34453) at the Namyang-si District Court of Namyang-si.

On May 3, 2018, the above court rendered a judgment under Paragraph (1) of the same Article (hereinafter “related judgment”) stating that “the plaintiffs shall jointly and severally pay to the defendant 5,983,120 won and 15% interest per annum from January 13, 2018 to the date of full payment,” and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. On November 20, 2018, the instant court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on D Building E and F (hereinafter “instant real estate”) upon the Defendant’s application for compulsory execution based on the relevant judgment on November 20, 2018.

(G) (hereinafter “instant auction”). The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution, and received the decision under Paragraph (3) of the order on April 2, 2019.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid KRW 689,260 on November 16, 2018 and KRW 1,200,00 on December 7, 2018 with the instant auction proceeds. The Defendant was fully paid with the investigation fees, appraisal fees, public notice fees, and bid fees.

However, on March 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 8,108,610 with the principal and interest of the Plaintiffs’ debt owed to the Defendant according to the relevant judgment and the execution cost of the auction of this case.

E. On May 8, 2019, the Defendant reserved and received an objection against the deposit.

【Ground for recognition】 A, B, D: Not dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, paragraph (e)

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should be denied, since all of the principal and damages for delay of the relevant judgment and the costs of executing the auction of this case have been deposited to the defendant.

As to this, the defendant did not deposit the whole expenses of the auction of this case, and did not pay the management expenses for the real estate of this case after the judgment of this case.