1. The defendant's order for the payment of the goods price case against the defendant's plaintiff is issued by the Jungyang-si District Court 2013 tea 451.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 5,792,600 (hereinafter “the instant goods price”) and damages for delay on the ground that “the Plaintiff purchased miscellaneous materials from the Defendant for safety from September 7, 2012 to October 25, 2012 and received them, even if it did not pay KRW 5,792,60” as the cause of the claim against the Plaintiff.

B. On February 12, 2013, the above court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on February 12, 2013, and the original copy is the same year.

2. The plaintiff was served on 15. 15. The above payment order was served on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not raise an objection within the objection period.

3. 5. Finality has been established.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff purchased miscellaneous materials from the Defendant, and Nonparty C and D were engaged in transactions with the Defendant by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the price of the goods of this case to the defendant, so compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

B. Around September 5, 2012, the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion issued an electronic tax invoice with the amount of KRW 5,266,00, the tax amount of KRW 526,60 with the Plaintiff’s value of supply, and the Plaintiff also approved the electronic tax invoice and completed the tax return accordingly, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of the instant goods to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “(1) assertion.” Home affairs, even if C and D traded with the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s name to use C and D through outside directors G, thereby making it possible for C and D to do so.