1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As the representative director of C (hereinafter “C”) of the Plaintiff, C borrowed KRW 100 million from the Korea Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) on January 23, 2008, the Plaintiff guaranteed 120,000,000 for all obligations to Korea Bank on the same day.

B. On March 30, 2009, the Korean bank transferred all of its claims against C and the Plaintiff to a limited company specializing in the ebancy-based securitization in Korea, and notified C and the Plaintiff of the fact of the transfer on April 15, 2009.

On November 30, 201, 201, the limited company specializing in the first-class securitization of efranchisive bonds transferred the above bonds to the FIM lending limited company, and notified C and the Plaintiff of the fact of the transfer on December 13, 201.

On July 29, 2013, the FIM loan limited company transferred the above bonds to the Defendant, and notified the transfer to C and the Plaintiff on October 25, 2013.

C. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant filed a request for a payment order against the Plaintiff and C with the purport that “the obligor jointly and severally liable for 50,000,000 won and the Defendant shall pay the Defendant a claim equivalent to the amount of delay damages equivalent to the rate of 20% per annum from the date when the original copy of the decision on the payment order was served to the date when the original copy of the decision on the payment order was fully paid,” and received the payment order, such as the contents of the application, from the above court (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order was finalized on May 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence of Nos. 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that he was merely the representative of C in the name of his company, and that he did not actually receive and use 100 million won of the loan which was the basis of the payment order of this case. Thus, the plaintiff did not have the plaintiff's obligation based on the payment order of this case, and sought non-permission of compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff.

However, only the plaintiff asserts.