1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiffs based on the payment order No. 2018 (Seoul Central District Court) No. 8444.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application with G for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 450,000,000 as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Hu8444, respectively, and damages for delay thereof. On March 16, 2018, the payment order issued as above was finalized on April 7, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

G died after the instant payment order became final and conclusive, and the Plaintiffs and H succeeded to the network G.

C. On March 26, 2019, the Defendant issued a written agreement to the Plaintiffs that “the Defendant renounced all rights to the instant payment order against the Plaintiffs, and agreed not to implement compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. It is reasonable to see that the agreement on non-execution of judgment on the cause of the claim is a claim contract under private law in connection with the realization of the substantive claim, and since the enforcement in violation of this agreement may be deemed to be an unlawful execution in substance and thus, it constitutes a ground for objection to the claim by analogy or mutatis mutandis application of Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da19072, Jul. 26, 1996). According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant’s execution of compulsory execution based on the instant payment order is an unfair execution contrary to the above non-execution agreement. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.