1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

The following facts are apparent or apparent to this court in the judgment subject to a retrial:

The defendant filed a provisional disposition against the plaintiff as Daejeon District Court 2012Kahap92, which applied for provisional disposition, such as the suspension of validity of a collective housing entrustment management contract.

On June 29, 2012, the foregoing court rendered a decision that “the Plaintiff shall not refuse to submit documents related to accounting affairs and management affairs (including electronic documents stored in computers) to the Defendant, and shall not interfere with the Defendant’s audit or have a third party interfere with the third party (hereinafter “instant order”). In the event of violation of the instant order, the Plaintiff shall pay 20,000 won per day of the offense to the Defendant from the date on which the instant order was served (hereinafter “instant order”). The said decision was served on the Plaintiff on July 3, 2012, and became final and conclusive on July 11, 2012.

On August 27, 2012, the Defendant issued the execution clause against the instant order for indirect compulsory performance, and on May 14, 2013, issued the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013TTTT6586, which issued the Plaintiff’s order for seizure and collection of the claim against the deposit account against the Jichi Agricultural Cooperative on May 16, 2013, and received the decision of acceptance from the said court on May 16, 2013, and collected KRW 6,824,140 (including execution expenses) on May 21, 2012.

In addition, on May 23, 2013, the Defendant issued the execution clause against the instant order, and on May 23, 2013, issued the Daejeon District Court 2013TTT7129 with respect to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against Jiil Agricultural Cooperatives, and received a decision of acceptance from the said court on May 27, 2013, and collected KRW 53,224,140 (including execution expenses) (including KRW 24,140) on May 23, 2013.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to recover KRW 60,00,000 on the basis of an invalid execution clause, and the court of first instance partly accepted the plaintiff's claim on November 21, 2013.