1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015 Gaz. 53730 Gaz.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Southern District Court No. 2015 Ghana No. 53730, Dec. 8, 2015, "the defendant has been sentenced to the plaintiff 3,085,50 won, and the defendant received 5% per annum from June 15, 2015 to October 27, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the defendant received 30% of the amount from the plaintiff 20, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 300, 208, 2010.

I would like to say.

Therefore, since there is no obligation based on the judgment of this case against the defendant against the plaintiff, compulsory execution based on the above judgment cannot be allowed.

2. The defendant's assertion is without a direct agreement with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not receive data to verify his/her status or authority as an agent, and thus, the agreement on repayment is not effective. However, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant through his/her agent.

As long as the amendment in accordance with the above agreement is asserted, even if there was a defect in the power of representation, it is reasonable to see that the defect was ratified by the plaintiff.