Plaintiff church (Law Firm Il, Attorneys Park Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

June 13, 2008

1. As to the decision protocol in lieu of conciliation in the Seoul Eastern District Court 2005Kadan6986 (principal claim) and the damages damages case 2006Kadan2750 (Counterclaim damages) between the plaintiff and the defendant, the junior administrative officer of this court gives the plaintiff the execution clause for compulsory execution against the defendant.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 1.

A. On May 9, 2006, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Plaintiff as Seoul Eastern District Court 2005Kadan6986, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages as a counterclaim. On June 2, 2006, the above court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation against the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant decision”). The instant decision became final and conclusive on June 2, 2006.

B. Details of the instant decision

(1) The Plaintiff shall pay a sum of KRW 50 million to the Defendant by June 30, 2006, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform this, the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay by adding 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment day.

(2) From the date on which the Defendant receives the above money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall not park the part ① on the ship that connects each point of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “the part of this case”) (hereinafter referred to as “the part of this case”) with the indication Ga, Da, Da, Ra, Ba, Ba, Ga, Ga, and Ga, which is 18 square meters wide from the date of receiving the above money from the Plaintiff among the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 of the attached Table 1, and not interfere with the Plaintiff’s use of the part ③ (hereinafter referred to as “the part of this case”).

(3) In the event that the Defendant violated the matters pertaining to the instant part (1), the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to one million won per day, and if the Defendant violated the matters pertaining to the instant part (3), the amount equivalent to five hundred thousand won per day shall be paid.

C. On June 29, 2006, the Plaintiff paid 50 million won to the Defendant according to the instant decision.

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the execution clause should be granted for compulsory execution of the defendant's property by designating the execution title in order to receive penalty of KRW 445,500,00,00 as the execution title as the execution title, inasmuch as the defendant is unable to park the land of this case and the use of the land of this case could not interfere with the plaintiff's use of the land of this case as to the land of this case since July 1, 2006, as long as the decision of this case was violated continuously since July 1, 2006, the conditions of compulsory execution were fulfilled. The defendant asserts that the execution clause should not be denied since the defendant parked the land of this case, and since the land of this case was occupied and used by the defendant, the conditions under the decision of this case were not fulfilled as long as the plaintiff's tenant occupies and uses

3. Determination as to the part of this case (1)

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1 through 196, and the results of the on-site inspection by this court, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

(1) The Defendant is running the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Dong number 2 omitted) and its owner as the owner of the land and the building on its ground adjacent to the instant part. The entrance of the underground parking lot of the building owned by the Defendant is adjacent to the instant part ①, and the entrance of the underground parking lot of the building owned by the Defendant is adjacent to the instant part, and there is a space for parking vehicles on the side of the building owned by the Defendant, and the entrance of the parking space is adjacent to the instant part ①.

(2) The Defendant owned (vehicle No. 1 omitted) trucks and (vehicle No. 2 omitted) trucks in order to operate the instant building center, but the vehicles (vehicle No. 2 omitted) among the vehicles owned by the Defendant were cancelled on July 12, 2007.

(3) Of the vehicles parked on the instant part ①, the vehicle (vehicle number 3 omitted) is owned by Nonparty 1, the lessee of the Defendant, and the vehicle (vehicle number 4 omitted) is owned by Nonparty 2, the lessee of the Defendant, who is the lessee of the Defendant and operates Nonparty 2, the title of the “Seong Construction and Iron Construction Business” in the Defendant’s building.

(4) The Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the instant part of the land, or parked in the parking space adjacent to the Defendant’s building, and the Defendant mainly parked the Defendant’s vehicle at the entrance adjacent to the Defendant’s underground parking lot. In this case, it is impossible to enter the bus used by the Defendant.

B. Determination

(1) The Defendant may know the case where the Defendant parked the Defendant’s vehicle in the part ① in the instant land and parked in the parking space adjacent to the Defendant’s building. First, if the Defendant parked in the parking space adjacent to the Defendant’s building, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant parked in the part ① in the instant land, and furthermore, if the Defendant parked in the parking space adjacent to the Defendant’s building, it can be seen that the Defendant’s vehicle sticked to the instant part ① in the instant land. However, this is merely an inevitable phenomenon in the course of parking in the said space, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s intent or perception was expressed to violate the instant decision in light of the process of parking in the said parking space, and it cannot be deemed that the use of the passenger bus used by the Plaintiff was hindered due to the protruding part, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act parked in the said space is in

(2) Next, the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the instant part of the land is 21 times as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 일 시 차 량 서증번호 1 2007. 2. 7. (차량번호 2 생략) 갑제8호증의 132 2 2007. 2. 8. ˝ 갑제8호증의 133 3 2007. 2. 9. ˝ 갑제8호증의 134 4 2007. 3. 2. ˝ 갑제8호증의 138 5 2007. 3. 3. ˝ 갑제8호증의 139 6 2007. 3. 5. ˝ 갑제8호증의 140 7 2007. 3. 6. ˝ 갑제8호증의 141 8 2007. 3. 7. ˝ 갑제8호증의 142 9 2007. 3. 8. ˝ 갑제8호증의 143 10 2007. 3. 9. ˝ 갑제8호증의 144 11 2007. 3. 10. ˝ 갑제8호증의 145 12 2007. 3. 12. ˝ 갑제8호증의 146 13 2007. 3. 13. ˝ 갑제8호증의 147 14 2007. 3. 14. ˝ 갑제8호증의 148 15 2007. 3. 15. ˝ 갑제8호증의 149 16 2007. 3. 16. ˝ 갑제8호증의 150 17 2007. 3. 17. ˝ 갑제8호증의 151 18 2007. 3. 19. ˝ 갑제8호증의 153 19 2007. 3. 20. ˝ 갑제8호증의 154 20 2007. 3. 22. ˝ 갑제8호증의 155 21 2007. 3. 23. ˝ 갑제8호증의 156

Therefore, since the defendant violated the decision of this case 21 times, the defendant is obligated to pay 21,00,000 won to the plaintiff. Thus, the junior administrative officer of this court should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff for compulsory execution against the defendant with regard to the decision of this case which became final and conclusive between the plaintiff and the defendant.

(2) Although it is known that Nonparty 1 and 2, the lessee of the Defendant, parked their vehicles on the land of this case, the decision of this case is effective only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, so long as the decision of this case is finalized between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it does not affect the lessee, and the decision of this case does not include that the Defendant’s lessee does not pay the penalty even when the Defendant’s lessee parked in the land of this case, and there is no evidence that the Defendant’s lessee is recognized as the Defendant’s performance assistant. Thus, the Plaintiff may not demand the Defendant to pay the penalty on the ground of Nonparty 1 and 2, the lessee of this case.

4. Determination as to the land in this case (3)

According to Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 176, the following images are revealed: (a) although the construction materials, etc. of "Seong Jae Jae-gu" operated by non-party 2, the lessee of the defendant, are stored on the land of this case; (b) as long as the decision of this case is confirmed between the plaintiff and the defendant, its effect is limited to the plaintiff and the defendant; (c) it does not extend to the non-party 2, the lessee; and (d) even if the non-party 2 entered the land of this case in this case, the defendant does not pay the penalty; and (e) there is no evidence to prove that the non-party 2, the lessee of this case, is in the status of the defendant's performance assistant, the plaintiff cannot demand the defendant to pay the penalty on account of the fact of the

5. Conclusion

The defendant is obligated to pay 21,00,000 won to the plaintiff and the condition of the decision of this case is fulfilled, so the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Table 1, 2, and 3]

Judges Cho So-young