1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 26, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs as Suwon District Court 2016Kadan578, Suwon District Court, and the said court rendered a judgment on May 17, 2017 that “1. The Plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable to receive gold-type 12 set forth in the attached Table 1 List No. 12 and the gold-type 10 set forth in the attached Table No. 2 List No. 2 (hereinafter “instant gold-type”) from the Defendant and jointly pay KRW 99,00,000 to the Plaintiff.”

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). B.

On June 9, 2017, the Defendant applied for granting the execution clause to the original copy of the instant judgment, and the court chief clerk D granted the execution clause to the original copy of the instant judgment on the same day.

hereinafter referred to as "assigning the execution clause of this case"

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The execution clause against the plaintiff's assertion judgment may be attested by the creditor that the conditions attached to the judgment have been fulfilled. Since the defendant did not perform the obligation to deliver the gold of this case to the plaintiffs pursuant to the judgment of this case, the granting of the execution clause of this case to the court of injection D is null and void, and therefore compulsory execution based on the original copy of the above executory judgment should be denied.

B. Article 30(2) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “When a creditor bears a condition attached to the execution of a judgment and the creditor proves that the condition has been fulfilled, he/she shall submit documents proving that the condition has been fulfilled, shall submit the execution clause.” However, as in the instant case, where a judgment of simultaneous performance was rendered, the performance of the consideration does not constitute “requirements” as prescribed by the above Act, and thus, the plaintiffs’

Article 41 (1) of the Civil Execution Act can be enforced simultaneously with the performance of opposite obligation.