1. The defendant's name of the building that was owned by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2006Ra3471 has an executory power over the plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

On November 11, 2004, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant as the lease term from November 11, 2004 to November 30, 2009, the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million, monthly rent of KRW 12 million (13.5 million from December 1, 2006).

(hereinafter “The first lease contract of this case.” Article 7(3) of the first lease contract of this case has a provision on settlement prior to filing a lawsuit (this contract is a settlement prior to filing a lawsuit and becomes effective after the settlement prior to filing a lawsuit).

On April 2, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of lawsuit (hereinafter “instant protocol of protocol of protocol”) stating that “The Plaintiff shall receive deposit from the Defendant on November 30, 2009, and at the same time ordering the Defendant to order the instant real estate” (hereinafter “instant protocol of protocol”).

On January 26, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant secondary lease agreement”) with the monthly rent of KRW 13.5 million from December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2014; and the monthly rent of KRW 13.5 million from December 1, 2010 to December 1, 201, and KRW 16.15 million from December 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant secondary lease agreement”).

(The remaining parts, including the provisions of the prior settlement, are the same as the lease agreement of this case). [The grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, the lawsuit of objection against the claims subject to the judgment of the claim causes of the entire pleadings, as set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, is the lawsuit demanding the exclusion of enforcement of the protocol of compromise, by asserting that the claims indicated in the protocol of prior settlement have been extinguished due to the causes arising after the establishment of the protocol

According to the above facts, the executory power of the conciliation protocol of this case is premised on the plaintiff's duty to deliver the real estate of this case to the defendant by November 30, 2009.

However, this case’s protocol of compromise was made after January 25, 2010 by the second lease contract of this case.