1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2016, Defendant (former Name: D) received a payment order against the Plaintiff and D, “The Plaintiff and D jointly and severally shall pay damages for delay from January 21, 2006 for KRW 10 million and KRW 5 million among them, and from March 31, 2006 for KRW 5 million, the damages for delay shall be paid from March 31, 2006 to the date of full payment.”

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order was served on January 21, 2016 with the Plaintiff and D.

B. D filed an objection on February 2, 2016, but the instant payment order against the Plaintiff was finalized on February 5, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an objection.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not know of the loan certificate (Evidence A2) submitted by the Defendant while applying for a payment order.

Although the plaintiff's mother D borrowed KRW 130 million from the defendant, it has been resolved by paying KRW 30 million and moving the commercial buildings located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 2 and the appraiser E's appraisal results and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the money on the above loan certificate to the defendant on December 14, 2005, on the ground that the plaintiff prepared and issued a loan certificate to the effect that "10 million won shall be paid to the defendant on January 20, 2006, but the remaining five million won shall be paid until March 30, 2016." Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the money on the loan certificate to the defendant.

Unlike others, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant received reimbursement from the Plaintiff or D regarding the claim under the instant payment order.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

3. The claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.