1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the payment order dated December 28, 2016 by the Incheon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2015, the Plaintiff leased a store operated by the Plaintiff to C at KRW 10 million, monthly rent, KRW 1.5 million.

(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). (b)

On May 10, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from the Defendant.

C. On June 21, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to D, KRW 2 million to E, and KRW 3 million to F, respectively.

On December 14, 2016, the Defendant issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Defendant lent KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on May 10, 2015,” and that “the Defendant applied for the payment order seeking payment from May 10, 2015.” On December 18, 2016, the said court issued the payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 10 million and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 4, 2017 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The instant payment order was finalized on January 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. (1) When the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from C, the Plaintiff merely took the method of account transfer from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and did not borrow the said money from the Defendant.

On June 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to the lease of this case with C, and KRW 8 million out of the lease deposit of KRW 10 million to D and F, and KRW 2 million to C, the creditors of C, and E, completed their return by paying the lease deposit of KRW 10 million to C, and the Defendant is sufficient to settle the monetary transaction relationship with C.

Sheb, that is, there is no loan obligation equivalent to KRW 10 million against the defendant, and compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied.

B. The Defendant leased KRW 10 million, which is the amount equivalent to the lease deposit, to the Plaintiff instead of C upon request during the lease process of this case by Defendant C.

The plaintiff is KRW 10 million C.