청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Defendant filed an application for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 60 million on the ground that he/she lent KRW 60 million in total to the Plaintiff, which is the wife of Lanyang-si District Court 2015j3242, Namyang-si, 201, KRW 30 million on November 27, 2008, and KRW 30 million on January 28, 2009, and the said payment order decision (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was delivered to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2015, and became final and conclusive as is, as is, the original copy.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap 1 to 3
2. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff did not borrow the money on the payment order of this case, and since the above money was borrowed by the husband C, both husband, the compulsory execution based on the above payment order shall not be permitted.
3. The plaintiff and C, together with the defendant's office around November 2008, requested a lending of KRW 30 million to the defendant by finding out the defendant's account number in their own name. At the time, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the bank account number in their own name and asked the defendant to transfer money to the above account. The defendant transferred KRW 30 million to the plaintiff's account on November 27, 2008. On January 2009, the plaintiff and C, together with the defendant to lend KRW 30 million to the defendant's office. At that time, the plaintiff and C, together with the defendant's office, requested a lending of KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000 to the defendant's office. At that time, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the bank account that he/she is his/her incidental, and the fact that the transfer was made to the above bank account on January 28, 2009.
According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff borrowed the above sum of KRW 60 million from the defendant, together with the husband C.
4. The conclusion is that the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff's claim seeking no objection is without merit.