1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Hu132054.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 7, 2018, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for payment order as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018 tea132054, and on November 7, 2018, the said court issued an order of payment stating that “The Plaintiff (A) shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 33% per annum for KRW 1,684,714 and its KRW 1,188,171 from August 5, 201 to the date of full payment,” and the said payment order was finalized on December 11, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The Defendant filed an application with the Ulsan District Court C for compulsory auction of real estate E apartment Nos. 6 of Ulsan District Court, Ulsan District Court, Ulsan District Court, for the compulsory auction of real estate Nos. 4617,380 won and damages for delay of KRW 1,188,171 among them, and the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the compulsory auction of real estate Nos. 4617,380 won and the damages for delay of KRW 1,171 among them, and the said court rendered the decision to commence

In the above auction procedure, the above real estate was sold on July 23, 2019, and the above court decided to grant a permit for sale on July 30, 2019.

C. On August 6, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited 5,473,000 won (Seoul Central District Court No. 20303 of the Seoul Central District Court 2019) in total, the principal and interest on the debt under the instant payment order with the Defendant as the principal deposit.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection to the instant claim, and filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with this Court 2019Kadan305, and this court rendered a decision on August 8, 2019 that compulsory execution based on the instant payment order will be suspended until the judgment of the instant case is rendered.

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

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's claim seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is justified, since the plaintiff deposited the total amount of principal and interest of the debt and execution expenses based on the payment order of this case, and thus the plaintiff's claim seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the payment order

3. Conclusion.