1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Seoul High Court failed to perform its duties in the conciliation protocol dated April 26, 2016, 2015 or 2024247.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2015, the court rendered a judgment to the effect that the Defendant’s decision of deprivation of qualification against the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the appointed parties D, and E filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (titles at the time were F Cooperatives) seeking confirmation of membership status, etc. under this Court No. 2014Gahap8570, and that the Defendant’s decision of deprivation of qualification against the Plaintiff and the appointed parties on October 23, 2012 was null and void, and that the remainder of the claim for compensation against the Defendant is dismissed.

B. The Plaintiff and the designated parties appealed against the above judgment, and the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2024247) was pending in the appellate court on April 26, 2016, and mediation was established between the Plaintiff, the designated parties and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant mediation”). The mediation clause is as follows.

1. On October 23, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that each determination of deprivation of qualification rendered by the Plaintiff and the designated parties was null and void.

2. The defendant, etc. shall pay 500,000 won for each of the plaintiffs and intervenors until May 3, 2016, and shall pay interest in addition to the rate of 15% per annum from May 4, 2016.

3. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant shall file an application for access to a military unit with the Plaintiff and the designated parties by May 3, 2016, subject to the submission of documents necessary for filing an application for access to the military unit of Pyeongtaek-si.

However, if the defendant violates the above application obligation, the defendant shall pay 50,000 won per day to the plaintiff and the selected person from May 4, 2016 until the application for the entrance pass.

C. Since then, the Defendant received documents from the Plaintiff and the appointed parties in accordance with the instant protocol, and filed an application for access to the U.S. military unit against the Plaintiff and the appointed parties, but the U.S.A. Trade Office notified the refusal of approval on June 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 5 evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion.