2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2015 Chicago1002, July 2015.

A. A. On July 31, 1999, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase from the Defendant the entire business of Yang-rowon C (Seoul High-gun D; hereinafter “instant Yang-gun”) for KRW 6 billion, on behalf of the Defendant, KRW 5.88 billion out of the purchase price was assumed by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant’s financial right loan obligation, and the remainder of KRW 120 million (hereinafter “the instant balance”) was paid directly to the Defendant by November 30, 1999.

B. However, as the Plaintiff continued to suffer losses from the two-way businesses, the Plaintiff transferred all of the two-way businesses of this case to the Switzerland (F religious organization’s general affairs and G religious organization’s chief knowledge) around May 31, 2001 as the Defendant’s introduction.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the remaining purchase and sale amount under the Changwon District Court Decision 2008Ra56, Changwon District Court Decision 2008Da56, which became final and conclusive April 1, 2008.

(hereinafter the above payment order of this case). 【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, at the time that the Plaintiff transferred all of the instant volume of business to Nits, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Nits had the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remaining purchase and sale of the instant case to the Defendant with the agreement that Nits would be exempted from liability and the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remaining purchase and sale was extinguished. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of the instant case should be denied.

B. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 3, it is acknowledged that at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer of all of the family members of this case to Eul, the fact that the Defendant participated in the sales of the family members to Eul’s “agent,” and the “acquisition agreement,” prepared at the time, stating “the method of succession shall be comprehensively succeeded to the book,” but such circumstance alone.