1. The Defendant’s payment order for the loan case against the Plaintiff on February 19, 2016, Seoul Western District Court 2016Da14890 dated February 19, 201.

1. The facts of recognition are: (a) the Defendant lent KRW 40 million to C on December 1, 2013, and the Plaintiff guaranteed the said obligation; and (b) the payment order written in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was served on February 24, 2016 by the Defendant upon request of the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of the said loan against the Plaintiff; and (c) the fact that March 10, 2016 became final and conclusive does not conflict between the parties; or (d) the testimony of the witness C, the testimony of the Party A, and the written evidence Nos. 1 through 3.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Comprehensively taking account of the witness C’s testimony, Gap’s evidence Nos. 6 through 9, the new bank, and our bank’s respective financial information as a result of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Defendant received reimbursement of KRW 16.6 million out of the instant loan (C’s KRW 1.26 million, December 26, 2013; KRW 31.7 million on December 31, 2013; KRW 1.8 million on January 27, 2014; KRW 1.5 million on April 29, 2014; KRW 50 million on May 10, 2014; KRW 3 million on May 20, 2014; KRW 7 million on August 20, 2014; and KRW 4.5 million on August 207, 2014; and there is no further evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff made payment to the Defendant on May 25, 2014.

B. Therefore, the instant claim remains in KRW 23.4 million (= KRW 40 million – KRW 16.6 million). Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should not be allowed to exceed the above scope.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.