1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is KRW 122,222,222, and the compulsory execution based on the payment order against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014 tea814.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 30, 2013, the Defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement with the net C (hereinafter “the network”) with a view to setting the interest rate of KRW 3.8% per annum, maturity of KRW 50 million on December 26, 2014, and delay damages at 20% per annum. On November 29, 2013, the Defendant entered into a payment agreement with the net C (hereinafter “the network”) with a view to setting the interest rate of KRW 4.6% per annum, maturity of payment on December 26, 2014, and delay damages at 20% per annum.

B. On January 30, 2013, the Defendant remitted KRW 50 million to the deposit account in the name of D, and KRW 500 million to the deposit account in the name of E on November 29, 2013, and lent KRW 550 million in total to the Deceased.

C. The Deceased died on June 16, 2014, and the Deceased’s inheritor is the spouse E and children, the Plaintiff, F and G.

On October 8, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order to the effect that “E is KRW 350 million, F is KRW 233,33,333, the Plaintiff is KRW 233,33,333, G is KRW 233,333,34, and each of the above money is paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment (this Court Decision 2014 tea814).”

Accordingly, the court served the original copy of the payment order on November 13, 2014 upon the above application for the payment order to the Plaintiff. On November 18, 2014, H received the original copy as the Plaintiff’s cohabitant.

After December 3, 2014, the above payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) became final and conclusive around December 3, 2014 because the plaintiff et al. did not raise an objection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant payment order is null and void as it is based on a claim that did not exist or falsely created, or a claim that was not the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s mother, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that he was served through his father, H in order to determine the instant payment order based on false claims. 2) The Defendant’s loan claims against the Deceased.