1. Compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the defendant based on the payment order of the goods price case in the court 2015 tea 44555 is six.

1. On November 27, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for payment order claiming that the Plaintiff has the claim for the payment of KRW 10,227,653 against the Plaintiff as the court heading 2015 tea455, and the Defendant filed an application for payment order claiming the payment of the above goods price and the compensation for delay thereof. The payment order issued on November 29, 2015 by this court was served on the Plaintiff on December 3, 2015, and became final and conclusive on the 18th of the same month.

2. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the above payment order shall not be permitted since the balance of 20 mirex 20 supplied by the defendant is 3,195,04 won, and that compulsory execution based on the above payment order shall not be allowed. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the amount of debt of the plaintiff's goods of this case is 9,466,903 won (the difference between 10,227,653 won and the payment order was calculated mistakenly).

Comprehensively taking account of the overall arguments and descriptions of Gap's evidence (certificate of deposit transaction), Gap's evidence (record Nos. 3, 4, 5 (record No. 150,000), and Eul's evidence Nos. 7 (statement No. 6/24) around June 2015, the plaintiff was supplied with 1,550,000 won per unit between the defendant and the defendant, and the parts necessary for the manufacture are imported by the plaintiff and supplied them to the defendant, and the price for the supply is set off with the above multi-party No. 10 (15,50,000 won) around June 24, 2015. The plaintiff was supplied with transportation order of 1-lane No. 10 (15,50,000 won) and 312,00 won (price No. 312,00 won) and 400,000 won per unit, the plaintiff was charged with the defendant.

7. The payment of KRW 5,284,347 was made on July 30, 201, and the supply related to the first installment transaction was 52 persons. However, around July 30, 2015, B, a person in charge of the Defendant Company, made a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff that the first installment transaction would be paid in full when the said amount was paid in KRW 5,284,347. Around July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff ordered 10 multiple-lanes from July 20, 2015.