1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the payment order issued on February 25, 2014, the Suwon District Court, Osan-si, the Defendant’s District Court (2014j483).

1. Basic facts

A. On February 10, 2014, Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) applied for a payment order of KRW 290,124,350 for the supply of sports supplies against the Plaintiff and issued a payment order of KRW 290,124,350 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on February 25, 2014. The said order became final and conclusive on March 14, 2014.

B. C filed an application for a compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) with the title to execute the instant payment order against the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4th floor D No. 401 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which is owned by the Plaintiff, with respect to the instant real estate, and accordingly, the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was completed on October 19, 2016 by the Gangseo-gu Seoul Eastern District Court’s Gangwon District Court’s Gangwon District Court’s Gangwon District Court’s 58371 on the ground of the decision to commence compulsory auction.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant merged C and completed the registration on November 2, 2017 by absorbing C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion, the non-party F, the representative director of the non-party F, was working in the non-party F, the non-party F, the non-party F, who was operated by the non-party F, and was to take over the above H. Since F had already been registered as the representative director of another company, it was called that F borrowed another person's name and accordingly, F took over the above company by lending the plaintiff's name that is the head of F. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not have any participation in the operation of H, and C was well aware of this fact.

As such, the Plaintiff is only a nominal lender, but is not a debtor to pay the price of goods. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should not be denied.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that C did not request the Plaintiff to name, and that both C and F could not become a transferee of H, the Plaintiff became the Plaintiff’s transferee of H, and the Plaintiff itself is the fact of operation of H.