1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016 tea5874.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a loan certificate and a cash custody certificate stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3,000,000,000 from the Defendant, and KRW 5,000,000 on March 14, 2013 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “motor vehicle certificate, etc.”).

B. The Plaintiff’s KRW 300,000 on June 16, 2013 to the Defendant;

7.16.300,000 won;

7.2.100,000 won;

7.31.200,000 won;

8.17.300,000 won;

8. 30.300,000 won, 200,000 won on January 16, 201, 11.7.20,000 won on July 25, 12.1,000,000 won on December 25, 2012, and KRW 600,000 on January 30, 2014, and KRW 20,000 on February 16, 2015;

5.18.200,000 won;

5.20.50,000 won;

6.20.200,000 won;

7.17.200,000 won;

7.18.600,000 won;

8.25.200,000 won;

9.1.1. 300,000 Won in total. 5,450,000

C. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking payment of the sum stated in the above loan certificate, etc. on December 20, 2016, the Defendant issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Seoul Northern District Court 2016 tea5874, and this Court decided on December 20, 2016 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 8,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant, and the Plaintiff received the original copy of the instant payment order on December 26, 2016, and the instant payment order was finalized on January 10, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3,00,000,00 from the Defendant on November 12, 2012 from the Defendant as a customer entertainment condition, and additionally borrowed KRW 5,00,000 on March 14, 2013 under the same condition as the Plaintiff additionally borrowed KRW 2,00,000,000, and accordingly, written a cash custody certificate of KRW 5,000. The borrowed money from the Defendant is more than KRW 5,00,000, and there was no interest agreement, and the Plaintiff is no obligation to pay the borrowed money to the Defendant as above.

In addition, the above borrowed money constitutes illegal consideration under the pre-payment of the customer entertainment condition, and the Plaintiff shall repay it.