1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no obligation or obligation between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant filed an application with the plaintiff for a payment order stating the plaintiff's address falsely around November 2008, and the above payment order was delivered to the above false address that the plaintiff does not actually reside, thereby obtaining the payment order of this case by fraudulent means.

Therefore, since the payment order of this case is null and void, compulsory execution based on it should be rejected.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a claim or obligation, even if considering all the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 13 of the judgment.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant applied for a payment order stating the plaintiff's false address and obtained the payment order in this case by fraudulent address, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the above plaintiff's assertion.

Rather, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the defendant's mother C received from the plaintiff's mother D's creditor E with respect to "60 million won among the claims for return of lease deposit against D," which was issued by the Seoul Southern District Court 2004TTT54 with respect to "60 million won among the claims for return of lease deposit against D," but it received a seizure and collection order against D with respect to "the claims for seizure and collection of claims against D," and paid the lease deposit (debt) amount of KRW 74 million to D with the intent of having no obligation to pay the claims against D. It can be acknowledged that the defendant, who succeeded to C's debt, received a judgment of performance of the above collection amount of KRW 60 million from E with respect to the above collection claim as Seoul Southern District Court 2007Da43034, and that the defendant paid the above collection amount of KRW 70 million to the legal representative, which is the inheritor of D's above collection claim or grounds for settlement of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.