1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Order 2014 tea57287 dated November 4, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of rent of KRW 32,50,000 with the Seoul Central District Court 2014 tea57287, and the said court decided the payment order upon the Defendant’s application on November 4, 2014, and the said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Northern District Court for the seizure and collection order of KRW 60,93,151 in total, including principal and delay damages, etc. based on the payment order of this case, among the claims held by the Plaintiff against C, with the original copy of the payment order of this case as the executive title. On April 4, 2019, the Defendant received a decision of acceptance on the seizure and collection order of the above claim from the above court.

(hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”). C.

On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited 61,321,582 won by adding the principal amount of KRW 32,500,000 under the instant payment order to the principal amount of KRW 32,50,000 under the instant payment order, delay damages, and expenses for demand procedure.

On September 9, 2019, the defendant submitted to the Seoul Northern District Court a written application for the release of the seizure of the claim of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of objection of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit of objection of this case, since all of the claims of this case were withdrawn from the seizure and collection order of this case, and the execution thereof was rescinded.

A lawsuit of demurrer may be brought regardless of whether the enforcement title with respect to a claim to which an objection is raised continues to exist, so long as the enforcement title continues to exist with respect to a claim to which an objection is raised, and it cannot be readily concluded that the enforcement force of the instant payment order expires solely on the ground that the Plaintiff repaid the debt and the Defendant withdraws the application for compulsory execution.

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant payment order is the Plaintiff’s obligation.