1. The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff was issued in Seoul Western District Court 2013 tea8694.

1. Basic facts

A. A retired while working in the Defendant Company by June 25, 2013, and entered into a FC commissioning Agreement with the Plaintiff on June 2013, and worked in the Plaintiff Company from July 4, 2013 to July 4, 2013.

B. On September 23, 2013, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 1736, 2012, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against A’s insurance contract fee claim against the Plaintiff by having the debtor A and the third obligor A and the third obligor KRW 16,00,000,00 from the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court as the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court as the Plaintiff and the claim amount of KRW 16,00,000. The above seizure and collection order reached the Plaintiff on September 24, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”). C.

The Defendant filed a payment order against the Plaintiff with this Court No. 2013 tea8694, and on January 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 16,00,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment.” The Plaintiff was served on January 14, 2014, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on January 29, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the fees that the plaintiff is liable to pay to A are not remaining to offset the amount of KRW 8,500,000 that the plaintiff is liable to pay to A, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case, which is premised on the fact that the plaintiff is liable to pay to A, shall be denied.

In this regard, the Defendant cannot offset the advance payment that A received from the Plaintiff, because it does not constitute an amount of money of the nature to be returned to the Plaintiff, and the amount that A reported income in 2013 shall be 49,517.