1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected compulsory execution is revoked.

2. The Defendant’s Jeju District Court on March 2016 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a labor contract between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant labor contract”) with the “C” trade name, and the Defendant decided to provide the visiting nursing service at the Plaintiff’s company.

According to the contract of this case, the defendant is paid 15,500 won for family care and 60 won for improvement of treatment with wages.

B. On January 18, 2013, the Defendant loaned KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, KRW 10 million on March 31, 2014, KRW 5 million on April 10, 2014, KRW 85 million on April 30, 2014, KRW 10 million on April 23, 2014, and KRW 85 million on December 23, 2014. The Defendant received reimbursement in total from December 30, 2014 to March 31, 2015.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of the loan under Jeju District Court 2016 tea1271. On August 3, 2016, the said court issued a payment order to the Defendant on the following day: “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the payment order with the content that “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 7.5 million and the delay damages calculated at a rate of 15% per annum from the date of service of the authentic copy of the payment order ( August 8, 2016) and the expenses for demand procedure (3

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on August 23, 2016 due to the Defendant’s no objection.

The Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) against the real estate owned by the Plaintiff with the Jeju District Court E with the title to execute the instant payment order, and the said court accepted it and rendered a ruling to commence the auction on November 25, 2016, but the present auction procedure has been suspended.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition of the existence of the Defendant’s loan claims, the Plaintiff prescribed the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. from August 9, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the original original copy of the instant payment order, to the Defendant.