1. The Defendant’s payment order was based on the payment order for the loan case in Chuncheon District Court Branch 2013j 301.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff A borrowed the amount of KRW 40 million from the Defendant at 24% per annum (2% per annum) and on February 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”). Plaintiff B jointly and severally guaranteed Plaintiff A’s obligation to borrow the instant loan.

(No. 5) b.

On May 20, 2013, a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the content that “the Plaintiff jointly and severally pays to the Defendant the amount of KRW 40 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from March 11, 2013 to the date of full payment,” which was issued on May 20, 201, in the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013 tea301, which requested the Defendant to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiffs, was finalized on June 8, 2013.

(A) [Evidence 1] / [Grounds for Recognition] , Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the loan of this case was extinguished in entirety by paying the loan of this case as stated in the separate sheet of repayment.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be allowed.

B. Determination 1) As to each of the repayment set forth in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 12, even if the plaintiffs paid money to the defendant as stated above, this cannot be viewed as a repayment for the loan of this case since it was prior to the occurrence of the obligation to borrow the loan of this case. 2) In addition, the separate sheet Nos. 13, 16, 18, 23, 25, 29, 31, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 68, and 69 from among the separate sheet of repayment.

(See the record submitted by the Defendant on November 8, 2017). In relation to the documents submitted by the Plaintiffs, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiffs is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiffs repaid the same as the above stated documents, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3..