1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Western District Court case No. 2014 tea 4419 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a corporation whose main business is insurance business, etc., and the non-party B entered into a contract with the defendant to commission the life insurance solicitor and was engaged in the designer and the manager, and the plaintiff is the mother of B.

B. B, at the time of the above commissioning Agreement, agreed that the Defendant shall set up an agreement on the performance of the insurance solicitation fee return and, in certain cases, refund the fee received.

(hereinafter “Agreement on Return of Fees of this case.” The agreement on the refund of fees of this case contains the Plaintiff’s name, seal, address, etc. as joint and several sureties.

C. Based on the fact that the Plaintiff’s name, etc. was stated in the joint and several surety column of the agreement on the refund of the instant fees, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the agreement on the refund of the instant fees and filed an application for a payment order (Seoul Western District Court 2014 tea 4419) with the Plaintiff seeking joint and several liability for the fees to be refunded to the Defendant, and the said court issued the payment order as requested by the Defendant, and the said court was finalized on September 4, 2014 because the Plaintiff did not raise any special objection.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not have a joint and several guarantee agreement for the refund of the instant fee.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. When the Plaintiff submitted a separate taxation certificate by tax item, resident registration certificate, copy of the register, market price search information, and copy of the back of the resident registration certificate issued directly by the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to refund the instant fee. Upon the commencement of compulsory auction under the instant payment order, there was a joint and several surety such as requesting withdrawal.

3. The judgment of the court of this case was examined, and the plaintiff had a claim for the payment order of this case in the objection case.