1. On the decision of this Court on a provisional disposition that prohibits the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff 2015Kahap146, this Court's decision.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around August 2014, four organizations, including D University Professors, D University Professors, D University Branch of D University, and D University Total Students Association, constituted a consultative body called “Emergency Countermeasure Committee”, which was a president’s retirement and normalization of schools.

B. In the foregoing process of farming, the D University Professors occupied the second floor president room of the main building, which is part of the D University’s building. The D University’s total students association obstructed the main building from November 3, 2014 to December 18, 2014.

C. On May 15, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for provisional injunction against interference with the Plaintiff, etc. with the Defendant’s management of the Defendant’s university by asserting that the said four organizations, including the Plaintiff, the representative of the D University branch, and F, G, H, I, I, and J (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) were obstructed by the Plaintiff, etc., and filed a provisional injunction against interference with the Defendant’s management of the Plaintiff’s university. On May 15, 2015, the lower court partially accepted the Defendant’s application and rendered a provisional injunction (hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional injunction order”). The instant provisional injunction order was served on the Plaintiff on May 20, 2015.

1. The plaintiff, etc. shall not engage in any act listed in the separate sheet of conduct within each building listed in the attached sheet of real estate.

3. In a case where the plaintiff et al. violates the order under paragraph (1), the debtors who committed the violation jointly and severally pay to the defendant KRW 3,000,000 per day of the violation.

The Defendant filed an application with the Cheongju District Court for granting execution clause against the instant provisional disposition order on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the provisional disposition order of this case, and on February 18, 2016, the above court assistant administrator of the above court grants one copy of the execution clause to the Defendant in order to enforce compulsory execution against the Plaintiff upon the order of the presiding judge (hereinafter “instant execution clause”).