1. The defendant's original of the payment order with executory power under the Seoul Western District Court 2016 tea 48348 against the plaintiff is based on the original payment order.

Facts of recognition

The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order with the content that the Plaintiff seeks payment of the outstanding balance of KRW 29,135,000,000, and the payment order stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued on July 19, 2016, and became final and conclusive around that time.

At the time of filing an application for a payment order, the Defendant submitted as evidence a written contract stating that “The trade name before the change of C, which the Defendant owned by, is Co., Ltd., D., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). 5 times of warrant certificates, sold KRW 58,270,00 to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 29,135,000 per contract, the remainder of KRW 29,135,000 per contract, and the payment of KRW 29,135,00 by July 15, 2014,” and this is signed and sealed by the parties

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to judgment did not have taken over the warrant certificates of Eul from the defendant, and the quantity and water supply contract submitted was forged.

Since the defendant's claim against the plaintiff stated in the cause of the claim for the payment order has no claim, it seeks to exclude the enforcement of the payment order in this case.

The Defendant delegated matters concerning the transfer of the Defendant’s new acquisition right securities to the M&D Investment Advisory Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Medidic Investment Advisory Co., Ltd.”) that deals with securities trading business, etc., and the Defendant delegated matters concerning the transfer of the Defendant’s new acquisition right securities.

On behalf of the Defendant, on June 16, 2014, a local investment advisory agreement entered into with the Plaintiff “C preemptive right transfer contract” on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant has the remaining claim against the Plaintiff under the said contract.

Judgment

In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the reason for failure or invalidation, etc. occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order with respect to the claim which became the cause of requesting the payment order, is the lawsuit of objection against the payment order.