A. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as 2010 tea321, and the Plaintiff issued a payment order to the Defendant to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 29, 2010 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of the payment order, to the Defendant, and became final and conclusive on June 12, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking objection against the instant payment order with the court 2016dan10581, but the dismissal ruling was rendered on February 7, 2018, and thereafter, the Daegu District Court 2018Na302597 was appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on November 15, 2018.

C. On December 28, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited to the Defendant KRW 49,97,143, including the principal amount of KRW 18 million under the instant payment order, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 29, 2010 to December 28, 2018, totaling KRW 30,930,410, and the expenses for demand procedure and its totaling KRW 46,833, and auction expenses, KRW 1019,90, and KRW 497,143.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The summary of the argument was that the defendant applied for a compulsory auction to the Ulsan District Court C on the plaintiff's property based on the payment order of this case, but the auction procedure was concluded by withdrawing the above application for compulsory auction after the plaintiff deposited for repayment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case has no interest in litigation.

B. The continuation of the compulsory execution procedure based on the enforcement title is not a legitimate requirement of a claim objection lawsuit, and as long as the validity of the payment order of this case is maintained, the defendant may, at any time, apply for compulsory execution with the enforcement title of the payment order of this case as the enforcement title. Thus, the plaintiff as the plaintiff has a benefit to file the lawsuit of this case to exclude the enforcement power of

Therefore, the defendant's above main defense cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff.