1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2009, the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”), and the Plaintiff decided to repay the instant loan by February 23, 2009.

B. On April 20, 2011, the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that “The design cost return claim of the design service contract and the loan claim of this case are KRW 30 million, and KRW 20 million,” and filed an application for the payment order with the Suwon District Court of the Suwon District Court seeking payment for the total amount of the above claim KRW 50 million and delay damages.

(201j. 1263 down payment)

On April 21, 201, the Suwon District Court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the content that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 50 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of full payment.”

The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on April 27, 201, and was finalized on May 12, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① Of the claim of the instant payment order, KRW 30 million was arising from the design service contract between the Defendant and D, and the obligation to return was not the Plaintiff, and the payment was completed according to the agreement between the Defendant and D.

② Of the instant payment order’s claim, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 20 million to E delegated by the Defendant for the collection of KRW 18 million to the Defendant. On July 8, 2011, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10 million to the Defendant and repaid the instant loan claim in full.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's debt against the defendant does not exist, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be rejected.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) around October 2008, the defendant requested the plaintiff who borrowed the name D to design the construction cost, and 3.