1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The Seoul Southern District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 7, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Southern District Court 2013Kahap32 against the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs’ shareholders for provisional disposition and indirect compulsory performance seeking the inspection of the Plaintiffs’ account books and documents.

B. The Seoul Southern District Court allowed only the perusal of some books and documents among the Defendant’s application and dismissed the rest of the application. The Defendant appealed on June 3, 2014 in the case of 2013Ra1474, and the Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court, should allow the perusal and copying of each of the books and documents in the separate sheet (including photographs and computer diskettes copies) from 09:0 to 18:00 for 20 days, excluding legal holidays, at the respective Plaintiffs’ head office or the storage place of the books and documents.

2. Where the plaintiffs fail to comply with the above order, the defendant shall pay 500,000 won per day of the violation to the defendant.

C.

The instant provisional disposition ruling was served on the Plaintiffs on June 9, 2014, and on June 10, 2014, respectively, and the Defendant applied for grant of execution clause based on the instant provisional disposition ruling on July 24, 2014. On August 29, 2014, Seoul High Court Grade B granted the execution clause (i.e., KRW 10 million (=50 million x 20 days) on the ground that the Plaintiffs violated each of the obligations stipulated in the instant provisional disposition ruling on August 29, 2014 on the ground that each of the above obligations was served on the Plaintiffs for 20 days from June 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs alleged by the parties are stated in the separate sheet to the defendant.