1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2017 Ghana 16239 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 8, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of penalty of KRW 3,874,027, and damages for delay thereof, with the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2017Da16239, Jun. 8, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff unilaterally reversed the service contract entered into with the Defendant listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

B. On April 27, 2017, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”) and the said decision became final and conclusive on May 24, 2017 by the Defendant, who was served on May 10, 2017 and did not file an objection within the objection period.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Eul evidence 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1). The instant service contract is not only an organization composed of not only the Plaintiff but also D occupants, but also the Defendant lost its validity due to the Defendant’s failure to reach an agreement with the owner. Therefore, compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the instant performance recommendation decision should be denied. (2) The Defendant did not meet the requirements for organizing the council of occupants’ representatives, and concluded the instant service contract with the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff unilaterally reversed the instant service contract, and thus, should pay the penalty to the defendant.

B. The judgment of the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have signed the instant service contract and indicated the Plaintiff’s resident registration number and mobile phone number, but the Plaintiff is indicated as D’s representative under the instant service contract, and there is no reason for the Plaintiff to independently assume the responsibility for the entire D, which is a multi-household, as an individual’s qualification, and the Defendant also concluded the instant contract on behalf of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant contract.