1. The original of the Defendant’s payment order issued on March 31, 2016, Korea District Court 2016 tea 1894.

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant asserted that, in return for the Plaintiff’s finding the ground, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff distributed the profits to the Defendant, and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff, and the payment order as stated in Paragraph 1 of the disposition accepting the Defendant’s claim became final and conclusive. However, the Plaintiff merely delegated the Defendant to recover the land as early as possible, and did not enter into an agreement for profit distribution as alleged by the Defendant, and all parts of the Plaintiff’s title of No. 2-1 and No. 2 (Agreement) presented by the Defendant in the above payment order case are forged, and even if there was an agreement for profit distribution, such agreement is null and void as it violates Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which is a mandatory provision, and constitutes an anti-social and public legal act.

3) Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above payment order shall not be permitted. (B) Defendant 1-2 and 2-2 of the evidence No. 2 of the Plaintiff was made on the basis of the Plaintiff’s genuine intent, and if the Plaintiff and the Defendant found the land as stated in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant would distribute to the Defendant the amount of profits therefrom.

2. A person who intends to find land under the plaintiff's protocol is the plaintiff himself/herself, and the defendant merely helps the plaintiff upon the plaintiff's request, and as the plaintiff becomes the principal agent, the above agreement cannot be deemed to be a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, including the delegation agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, requested the Defendant to recover the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff, the ownership transfer registration of which is completed under the name of the clan, ① Incheon Strengthening-gun C, D, E, and ② Incheon Strengthening-gun F, and ③ Incheon Strengthening-gun G (hereinafter, Myeon address), delegated the right to manage and dispose of each of the above land, and the Defendant is necessary from around 2009 to around 201, where the Defendant performed the work of searching for land under the name of the clan.