1. The defendant's decision is based on the case of purchase price for the defendant 2018 tea, 1647, which is located in the court of Gwangju District Court.

1. On August 24, 2018, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C’s obligation to pay the remainder of the vessel, which is the owner of the vessel, to the Plaintiff, as a result of this court’s 2018 tea1647, and filed an application for a payment order seeking KRW 20,000,000 and interest for arrears.

On August 29, 2018, this Court issued an order to pay 20 million won to the Defendant, “The Plaintiff shall pay 5% per annum from May 1, 2018 to the service date of the original copy of the payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.”

The above payment order was finalized as it is.

[Reasons for Recognition] Clear fact in this Court, Gap evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment asserted that the plaintiff merely supported C's agent's joint and several surety for C's remainder of ship. Thus, compulsory execution based on the payment order in this case should not be allowed.

It is not enough to recognize that the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the remaining amount of the ship of Eul only with the descriptions of the lives, Gap evidence 3, and Eul evidence No. 1.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.