A. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) seeking payment of KRW 22,522,500 for equipment costs as the District Court Decision 2017 tea161.

B. On December 4, 2017, the District Court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay KRW 22,522,500 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

C. C filed an objection against the instant payment order, but the Plaintiff did not file an objection, and the Defendant’s above payment order against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive at that time.

C. On the basis of the original copy of the instant payment order, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order for the Plaintiff’s claims against D Agricultural Cooperatives as the District Court 2018TTT3234, and collected KRW 7,155,840 from D Agricultural Cooperatives on May 3, 2018, and collected KRW 7,15,840 from D Agricultural Cooperatives, and the same month.

4. The collection report was made to the above court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, and whether the whole purport of the pleading is legitimate

A. Generally, in a case where compulsory execution based on executive titles has been completed as a whole and an obligee has already satisfied, there is no interest in a lawsuit seeking non-permission of such compulsory execution by filing an objection to the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489 delivered on April 25, 1997, etc.). In addition, even if a compulsory execution against a part of the amount on the executive title is terminated, there is no benefit of a lawsuit seeking the denial of compulsory execution by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the said part as to the said part, and thus, the propriety of the claim on the merits should be deliberated only on the part on which the execution has not been completed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043, May 29, 2014). B.

On the other hand, the defendant applied for a seizure and collection order based on the payment order of this case.