1. The payment order that became final and conclusive in Seoul Southern District Court 2013 tea 69201 between the Defendant and D Co., Ltd.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 as to the cause of the claim, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D") filed a claim against the defendant for a loan with Seoul Southern District Court 2013 tea and 69201, and on January 3, 2014, the above court issued the payment order (hereinafter "the instant payment order") to "the defendant shall pay to D 2,96, 164 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 39% per annum from December 6, 2013 to the date of complete payment" (hereinafter "the instant payment order"), and it is recognized that D sent the above payment order to the defendant on behalf of the defendant on Jan. 24, 2014 (hereinafter "E"), D shall have received the notice of assignment of claims on behalf of the defendant, and the fact that E. 18, 2015, respectively, transferred the claims to the defendant on behalf of 2, 2018.

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff was acquired by transfer from D the bond based on the payment order of this case after the issuance of the payment order of this case, a junior administrative officer, etc. of this court in regard to the payment order of this case between D and the defendant shall grant the execution clause to the plaintiff for compulsory execution against the defendant.

2. As to the defendant's assertion and judgment, the defendant did not guarantee F's loan obligation against F's D, and even without such guarantee, the claim of this case was completed by extinctive prescription, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful.

In a lawsuit for grant of execution clause under Article 33 of the Civil Execution Act, where the creditor is unable to prove the matters to be attested by a certificate in order to obtain the execution clause, the method of proof shall be applied.