1. The Defendant’s order for payment in the Sucheon-si District Court Decision 2019Da564 was issued against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 20, 2019, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of the agreed amount of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 from the Suwon District Court Branch Branch of the Suwon District Court, the Defendant applied for payment order against the Plaintiff. On September 20, 2019, the said court ordered the Defendant to pay “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 10,000,000,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from October 16, 2019 to the date of full payment.” The said payment order was finalized on October 30, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the plaintiff as Suwon District Court Branch C with the original copy of the payment order in this case as the executive title, and was issued a decision to commence the auction procedure on December 31, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”). C.

On March 11, 2020, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 11,029,976 by adding the principal amount of KRW 10,000,000 under the instant payment order to the principal amount of KRW 10,000 under the instant payment order, delay damages, and expenses for auction execution.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that since the decision-making of this case's defense was withdrawn from a compulsory auction application of this case, the lawsuit of objection of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit.

A lawsuit of demurrer may be brought regardless of whether the enforcement title with respect to a claim to which an objection is raised continues to exist, so long as the enforcement title continues to exist with respect to a claim to which an objection is raised, and it cannot be readily concluded that the enforcement force of the instant payment order expires solely on the ground that the Plaintiff repaid the debt and the Defendant withdraws the application for compulsory execution.

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the obligation of the instant payment order has ceased to exist by the Plaintiff’s deposit of the total amount of the obligation, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order shall not be permitted.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.