The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100,000,00 to C on February 10, 2018 with interest rate of KRW 24% per annum. However, when C fails to perform the above monetary obligation, a notary public, which recognizes that there is no objection even if it was immediately enforced, was written by the law firm at the original rate of KRW 88, 2015 (hereinafter “notarial deeds”).

B. On February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order with KRW 100 million with the amount of the claim based on the instant authentic deed with executory power (C. Changwon District Court Decision 2018TTTT499), and on February 2, 2018, the written decision on the seizure and collection order against the Defendant stated that C is “through time” in the written decision on the seizure and collection order against the Defendant, but this appears to be a clerical error in the “Presentation”. D’s place of business (hereinafter “instant place of business”) was deemed to be a clerical error in the name agreement regarding the operation of the instant place of business (hereinafter “instant place of business”). As to “all rights arising under the agreement on the same business, such as the right to claim the sale price, the right to claim the return of deposit, the right to claim the settlement of sales

(hereinafter “instant collection order”). C.

The instant collection order was served on February 7, 2018 on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the collection order of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff according to the collection order of the instant case. Of them, the Defendant claims for payment of KRW 30 million as part of the claim and damages for delay.

B. In a lawsuit for the amount of collection, the existence of the claim under collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007). In this case, C’s claim for payment to the Defendant is against the Defendant in relation to the instant workplace.