1. The Defendant’s order of payment for the loan case No. 2012, 188, Cheongju District Court for the Plaintiff was due to the Defendant’s order of payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 12, 2012, the Defendant, on the debtor’s Internet website, set KRW 10,000,000 as the overdue interest rate of KRW 38.99% and lent at the Defendant’s Internet website via verification procedures with the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate.

B. The Defendant filed an application with the Cheongju District Court for a payment order claiming the payment of the above loan against the Plaintiff as the Cheongju District Court Decision 2012 tea188, and this court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) upon the above application on October 9, 2012. The instant payment order was finalized on October 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that, since the plaintiff did not borrow the above loan from the defendant, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted, it is reasonable to view that Eul, who is the plaintiff, obtained the right of representation from the plaintiff, borrowed the above loan from the defendant by stealing the plaintiff's authorized certificate without obtaining the right of representation from the plaintiff. Thus, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.