1. Compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Defendant based on the original copy of the payment order (No. 2015j425) rendered by the Changwon District Court for the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 30, 2014, the Defendant requested to lend money under the name of an apartment from the Plaintiff’s mother, which is an apartment, to the Plaintiff’s mother, and transferred KRW 21 million on the same day to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 20,11 million on October 2, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant money”). B.

After lending KRW 20,1100,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed an order for payment under Paragraph 1 of the order with the Changwon District Court for the payment of KRW 11,110,000 and delayed damages remaining after claiming that only KRW 10,000 were refunded to the Plaintiff as above, and filed an order for payment with the said court on March 16, 2015, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order with respect to KRW 1.1 million to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was finalized around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The main purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s mother C rather than the Plaintiff’s mother, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should not be permitted.

B. Since the judgment payment order has become final and conclusive but res judicata does not arise, the obligor on the payment order can assert the absence or invalidity of the claim on the grounds prior to the issuance of the payment order. As such, where the obligor claims the absence of the claim on the payment order established and files a lawsuit of objection against the claim, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim is against the obligee who applied for the payment order, i.e., the defendant in the lawsuit of objection against

Therefore, in the case of this case, the defendant should assert and prove that the plaintiff has a loan claim of KRW 11.1 million against the plaintiff.

In the name of the plaintiff, the defendant totaled 2,110,000.