1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is denied based on the payment order No. 2015 tea3479.

2. This.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant asserted that, as Suwon District Court Decision 2015 tea3479, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 against the Plaintiff on October 23, 2014 on the due date for repayment on December 23, 2014, the Defendant applied for a payment order with the purport that “10,000,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from December 24, 2014 to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment,” and that the payment order was served on the Plaintiff on November 19, 2015 and became final and conclusive on December 4, 2012.

hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"

B) On April 18, 2017, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on real estate owned by the Plaintiff based on the original copy of the instant payment order, and voluntarily withdrawn the said compulsory auction on July 24, 2017, which was after the instant lawsuit was instituted. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the entries in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and Eul’s evidence No. 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. As to the plaintiff's claim for non-performance of compulsory execution based on the original copy of the payment order of this case, the defendant raised a defense to the effect that the claim of this case does not have a benefit of lawsuit since he applied for compulsory auction based on the payment order of this case.

However, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the defendant's application for compulsory auction, since the execution of the payment order of this case is not extinguished, the lawsuit of this case seeking the exclusion of such enforcement force cannot be deemed as having no interest in the lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,00,000, which was paid from the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s passbook in the name of the Plaintiff on October 23, 2014, regardless of the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Plaintiff fully repaid the same according to the intentional liability. As such, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

B. In addition to KRW 10,00,000,000 on October 23, 2014, the Defendant asserted by the Defendant directly lent KRW 10,000,000 on September 22, 2014 to the Plaintiff or daily life.