1. Compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the defendant based on the payment order No. 2010 tea70 dated January 19, 2010 by the court against the plaintiff is 1,111.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application for the payment order against the Plaintiff under this Court No. 2010 tea70, and the Plaintiff and C jointly and severally filed an application with the Defendant for the payment order of KRW 24,00,000 and the Defendant’s payment order of KRW 5% per annum from November 5, 2008 to the service date of the authentic copy of the payment order, and the payment order of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment was served on the Plaintiff on January 27, 2010, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on February 11, 2010 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The Defendant applied for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff’s real estate based on the original copy of the instant payment order and received a decision to commence compulsory auction (D) on October 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case. ① The plaintiff did not have a debt based on the payment order in this case since most of the amount of active fish supply to the defendant and was exempted from the remaining debts. ② The damages for delay did not be enforced for 7 years from the date on which the payment order in this case became final and conclusive, so the damages for delay in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith shall be reduced. ③ The plaintiff asserted that since the defendant paid the debt of the payment order in this case to the defendant as depositee and the defendant paid it by reserving and receiving the objection, compulsory execution based on the payment order

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should bear the above obligation by preparing and delivering a certificate of borrowing that the plaintiff would pay the active fish supply price, and that 2,228,930 won should be additionally paid for the application for compulsory auction in the real estate compulsory auction case based on the original copy of the payment order

B. (1) First of all, the Plaintiff’s obligation based on the instant payment order is examined as to the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation, Eul’s certificate of borrowing No. 8.