1. The amount taken over between the limited liability company C (formerly: D) and the defendant, as Seoul Central District Court 2015 teas 234908;

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers of evidence Nos. 2) as to the cause of the claim, Eul applied to the defendant for a payment order to the Seoul Central District Court 2015Hu234908 and received the payment order on Nov. 21, 2015, and the payment order became final and conclusive on Nov. 21, 2015, and C transferred the claim based on the above payment order to E on Aug. 30, 2019, and E transferred the claim to the plaintiff on Nov. 22, 2019, and E transferred the claim again to the plaintiff on Nov. 22, 2019, it was not possible to recognize the fact that the notice of assignment was sent to the defendant on Nov. 27, 2019, but the notice of assignment was not delivered to the defendant on Feb. 6, 2020.

Therefore, for compulsory execution against the defendant, the junior administrative officer, etc. of the Seoul Central District Court should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff who is the successor to the claim based on the above payment order.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's claim against the above payment order has already been completed, and as long as there is no proof on the interest rate for delay, etc., the defendant can not respond to the claim of this case.

However, the subject of a lawsuit for grant of execution clause is limited to the requirements for grant of execution clause, including the fulfillment of conditions or the fact of succession (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93087, Apr. 13, 2012). The Defendant’s above assertion is not related to the requirements for grant of execution clause, and therefore, it is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.