A. The Plaintiff was supplied alcoholic beverages through C from December 12, 2013 to the Defendant’s business employees from around December 12, 2013, while operating a general view point of the trade name “B.” The Defendant filed a complaint with the Government’s District Prosecutors’ Office on the grounds that C received a total of KRW 111,607,42 from 66 business partners including the Plaintiff, and used it for personal purposes. The said Prosecutor’s Office suspended prosecution on the grounds that C’s location is unknown around November 10, 2015.

B. On February 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul East Eastern District Court for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 4,607,900 for the purport that the Plaintiff was supplied with alcoholic beverages from the Defendant and did not pay the liquor price of KRW 4,607,90, and on March 8, 2016, the Defendant received a payment order (hereinafter referred to as the instant payment order) with the Seoul East East Eastern District Court 2016Da1133, which stated that “the Plaintiff would pay damages at the rate of KRW 4,607,90 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from the day after the payment order was served to the Defendant to the day of complete payment.” The instant payment order was finalized on March 30, 2016 because the Plaintiff did not file an objection within the objection period even after having received the instant payment order on March 15, 2016.

C. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant applied for the seizure and collection of the claim against the Plaintiff as the obligor, Korea Bank, New Bank, Han Bank, Han Bank, and Nonghyup Bank, a third party obligor, based on the executory exemplification of the instant payment order. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order from the above court.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2-4 and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim of this case, and the plaintiff fully repaid the defendant's obligation to pay liquor to the defendant, and the defendant also confirmed it.