The original of the payment order with executory power in the Seoul Western District Court 2015 tea34580 case between the defendant and D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order against the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015 tea34580, and the same court issued a payment order on June 17, 2015 to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay 6,744,240 won in D and 1,219,560 won in delay,” which became final and conclusive on July 8, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The Plaintiff received a claim based on the instant payment order from D on February 27, 2019, and sent a notice of assignment of claim to the Defendant, but did not reach the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Execution Act, an execution clause may be granted for the successor of the creditor indicated in the judgment. In such cases, when the necessary verification is impossible, the successor of the creditor may file a lawsuit for the grant of execution clause with the court of first instance.

The provisions of Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the compulsory execution based on the finalized payment order.

(Article 56 Subparag. 3 and Article 57 of the Civil Execution Act). In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff, a creditor indicated in the instant payment order, who is the Plaintiff, cannot certify the succession due to the failure to reach the notification of the assignment of claims to the Defendant, the debtor, and thus, can file a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the execution clause with this court.

Therefore, regarding the executory payment order copy of the Seoul Western District Court 2015 tea34580 receipt money case between the defendant and D, the Seoul Western District Court, etc. should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff who is the successor of D for compulsory execution against the defendant.

B. On this issue, the Defendant was granted immunity by filing an application for personal bankruptcy and exemption after the payment order of this case.