2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 13, 2007, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order with the purport that on December 5, 2001, the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff the amount of the loan, interest, and other claims (hereinafter “claim for the loan of this case”) that was paid by the Women's Ledice Co., Ltd to the Plaintiff under the loan contract on December 5, 2001, and that he would pay the amount of the loan of this case to the Defendant in sequential order by asserting that he/she transferred the claim for the loan of this case to the Defendant, and that he/she would pay the amount of 10,848,440 won, and damages for delay at the rate of 30%

B. The Seoul Central District Court issued a payment order under the preceding paragraph (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on February 4, 2008 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the original copy delivered to the Plaintiff on February 13, 2008 in the case of demand procedure in which the Plaintiff did not raise any objection, and the instant payment order was finalized on February 27, 2008.

C. Based on the original copy of the instant payment order, the Defendant collected KRW 1,557,055 of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Industrial Bank of Korea on October 27, 2014 and appropriated it for the repayment of the said claim by collecting KRW 1,557,055 from the Plaintiff’s deposit claims on the Industrial Bank of Korea based on the issuance of a seizure and collection order under the jurisdiction of the Chuncheon District Court

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1 Plaintiff, such as the absence of debt, etc., gave gift certificates to Nonparty 1 in around 2001, and acquired the Plaintiff’s personal information by deceiving the Plaintiff and then stolen the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, and concluded the above loan contract with Defendant Darady Co., Ltd. by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and thus, the Defendant asserted that there was no claim for loans against the Plaintiff by female Darady Co., Ltd., Ltd., claiming that the Defendant acquired it from the beginning. As such, Nonparty 5, who