Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order with Seoul Northern District Court 2013 tea 1480, and on March 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original payment order to the date of full payment order” (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original payment order to the date of full payment order.” It was finalized on April 13, 2013

B. On January 21, 2020, the Defendant received a collection order for the claim seizure and collection issued by the Plaintiff, the third obligor C, and the D Partnership, etc. on January 29, 2020, with the title of enforcement of the instant payment order as the title of execution, and reported it to collect KRW 84,307,524, and the sum of KRW 8,015,422,952 from D Partnership on January 30, 2020.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation equivalent to KRW 170,000,000 against the Defendant, the mother, who is the money on the instant payment order, to the Defendant, or borrowed KRW 116,00,000 from the Defendant, and there was no fact that the Defendant prepared an explanatory note (No. 3).

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, upon the instant payment order, collected KRW 92,322,952 in total by accepting a seizure and collection order for the Plaintiff’s claim against C, D, etc. upon the instant payment order. As such, the Defendant is obligated to refund or pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 92,322,952 with compensation for damages arising from unjust enrichment or tort, and the delayed damages therefrom.

3. Determination

(a) The authenticity of the document to acknowledge the authenticity of each letter may also be established by a comparison of the penmatics or the seal imprintics, and the comparison of the penmatics or the seal imprintics shall belong to a documentary evidence of fact-finding freedom.