On September 27, 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract with the cosmetic Product Distribution Business Center (hereinafter “G”) of the name “G” on the first floor of the building located on the 1st floor in the YY-gun, Jeonnam-gun, the Plaintiff owned on September 27, 2018, and completed the construction on November 10, 2018.

The Defendant received the payment of KRW 40,00,000,000 as the instant construction cost on September 27, 2018, plus KRW 20,000,000 on October 2, 2018.

On May 23, 2019, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiffs for the payment of the remainder of the construction cost, and on May 30, 2019, the Defendant received the instant payment order ordering the Plaintiffs to “the Defendant jointly and severally pay to the Defendant KRW 27,100,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment.” This order was served on the Plaintiff on June 3, 2019 for the Plaintiff, and on June 4, 2019 for the Plaintiff B, and was finalized around that time.

After that, the Defendant collected KRW 20,00,000 on November 4, 2019, upon receipt of the instant payment order, from the Plaintiff’s deposit claim under the seizure and collection order (Gwanju District Court 2019TB 20869), and applied for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables (the same court H) at the auction procedure (the same court H) to collect KRW 3,915,800 on December 19, 201.

[Grounds for recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 6-1, and plaintiff Eul's assertion that the plaintiff's claim is not a party to the construction contract of this case, and the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff did not allow compulsory execution of the whole pleadings, and since the plaintiff paid the construction price of this case to the defendant at KRW 50,00,000 after agreement with the defendant, there is no obligation to pay the construction price of this case to the defendant.

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

Plaintiff

A is a contracting party.