2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an order for payment with Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) on the ground that it lent KRW 50 million to Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) and filed an application for a payment order with Nonparty Co., Ltd. on January 7, 2016, stating that “Nonindicted Co., Ltd shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 54.2 million per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from the day after the date the original copy of the instant payment order was served,” and the said payment order was served with Nonparty Co., Ltd as of January 21, 2016.

2. 5. The decision was confirmed as 5.

B. On June 10, 2016, Nonparty Company completed the ownership transfer registration for a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) on the grounds of sale in the Defendant’s future. On June 28, 2016, the Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant motor vehicle on June 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, 9

2. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, the Plaintiff filed an application with Nonparty Company for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 54.2 million and delay damages therefor, and it can be acknowledged that the above payment order was issued and confirmed on February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff’s loan claim against Nonparty Company constitutes a creditor’s revocation claim.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff invested in the non-party company and operated the non-party company while engaging in the non-party company E and the partnership business, and it does not lend the money stated in the payment order to the non-party company.

However, since the payment order has no res judicata effect on the payment order, the confirmation of the payment order alone does not clearly determine the existence of preserved bonds such as the loan bond entered in the payment order. However, even if so, the above assertion was accepted by the lawsuit of objection to the claim, and the contents of the payment order are stated.