1. It was concluded on November 6, 2012 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and the neighboring officetel association.

1. Basic facts

A. (i) On November 23, 2001, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract for the construction of an officetel (hereinafter “new construction of an officetel”) with the subcontractor of the YY Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “TY”) at the construction site, the subcontractor of the construction site of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) and leased the temporary materials, such as water pumps, to the CY.

Luxembourg, however, the third-party case did not pay the Plaintiff the rent under the above rental agreement, and the Plaintiff filed a claim for rent against third-party case, and on May 26, 2008, the decision of recommending settlement (Seoul High Court 2008Na1790 case) with the purport that “The third-party case shall pay to the Plaintiff 40 million won and the interest rate of 10% per annum from July 1, 2008 to the day of full payment (the Seoul High Court 2008Na1790 case).”

On October 4, 2007, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order with respect to the claim for the payment of the price for the new aggregate development (limited to the original contractor of the new construction works in this case; hereinafter referred to as the “new comprehensive development”), and on July 22, 2008, filed an application for the payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2008 tea 49147 collection amount) with respect to the payment of money calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from July 1, 2008 to the date of full payment (the Seoul Central District Court 2008 tea 49147 collection amount) against the new comprehensive development, and the above payment order was finalized as it is with the objection period on August 28, 2008.

Applicant on November 12, 2008, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order with respect to the claim for the construction price from the Green Office Building Association (the client of the new construction works in this case; hereinafter referred to as the "debtor Union"), and filed a lawsuit against the debtor union for the claim for the collection amount (the "previous collection lawsuit") on February 5, 2009, against the debtor union (the defendant's association was the defendant on November 5, 2009).