1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff at the Jeonju District Court on May 20, 2019, based on the payment order 4989, before 2019.

1. As legitimate holders of five copies of a summary note issued by the Bank and endorsed by the Plaintiff and B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”), such as the issuance of the Plaintiff’s promissory note and the confirmation of payment order against the Plaintiff, each of the instant promissory note gold (74,159,000 won, 27,000 won, 27,000 won) against the Plaintiff and the Non-Party Co., Ltd. was declared final and conclusive by filing a lawsuit seeking joint payment of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff and the Non-Party Co., Ltd. under the former District Court Order No. 93Da1027,9,000 won, and damages incurred therefrom.

On the other hand, the defendant acquired all bonds that the defendant ordered payment from the Industrial Bank of Korea to the plaintiff in accordance with the contract of transfer of bonds.

The Plaintiff filed a payment order with the Jeonju District Court No. 2019, 4989, seeking the payment of the acquisition amount, and the payment order became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant payment order”). [Ground for recognition] of absence of dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 3-2, Eul’s evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. As the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff acquired the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff by transfer.

As such, the defendant asserted that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted. The defendant acquired the bonds against the non-party company of the Industrial Bank of Korea, and received the endorsement of each promissory note exempted from the Industrial Bank of Korea from preparing a certificate of refusal to issue the plaintiff.

The argument is asserted.

B. In light of the foregoing, the claim established under the instant payment order is based on a contract for the transfer of a claim, not a transfer of endorsement of a bill, and on a different premise, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected without any further review as to the validity of the transfer of endorsement of a bill, and otherwise, the Bank and the Defendant entered into a contract for the transfer of a claim between the Bank and the Defendant.