1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff on April 19, 2018, based on the payment order order (No. 2018 tea1614) issued by the Daegu District Court.

1. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant, on January 3, 2018, filed an application with the Daegu District Court for a payment order against the plaintiff, alleging that he/she received a loan certificate from the plaintiff on the same date and the repayment period of KRW 30 million on the same date was fixed as of March 30, 2018 as stated, and applied for a payment order against the plaintiff. Upon the above application, the payment order order was issued on April 19, 2018 by the Daegu District Court Decision No. 2018Guj1614 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant payment order"), and the above decision became final and conclusive within two weeks from the date of delivery, according to the purport that the plaintiff did not raise any objection.

2. On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted the cause of the claim does not borrow KRW 30 million from the Defendant, and accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no loan claim against the Plaintiff, which is the claim for the instant payment order, and sought non-permission of compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.

3. We examine whether the Defendant lent KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, such as the content of the instant payment order, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

The Defendant: (a) lent money to C several times from March 2017 to March 2018; and (b) concluded a loan certificate of KRW 30 million in the name of the Plaintiff to the effect that C would repay the said KRW 30 million to the Defendant upon delegation from the Plaintiff, his mother; (c) and (d) provided the Defendant with a loan certificate of KRW 30 million in the name of the Plaintiff to the effect that C would pay the Defendant the said KRW 30 million; (b) accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable for the said loan certificate by lawful act of the Plaintiff, as seen above, and at least is liable for the expressive agent pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act.

The entries of Gap 5, 6, Eul 1, 2, and 3 (including the number with each number) are insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff delegated the authority to prepare the above loan certificate to Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2.2.2