1. The amount taken over between the limited liability company C (formerly: D) and the defendant, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013j. 91318;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2013, a limited liability company C (hereinafter “C”) filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant to request the payment order, and the Defendant received a payment order with C to pay KRW 45,138,65 and KRW 9,860,175 per annum for KRW 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”); and the said payment order was served on the Defendant on May 24, 2013 and finalized on June 8, 2013.

B. The instant claim against C against the Defendant was transferred in sequence to E Co., Ltd. on August 30, 2019, and to the Plaintiff on November 22, 2019, but the notice of transfer was not served on the Defendant.

C. On February 10, 2020, the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to send the notification of transfer in turn from the transferor, and the complaint of this case attached with the notification of transfer of transfer was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the plaintiff is the successor to the claim for the transfer money based on the payment order of this case. Thus, the Seoul Central District Court shall grant the execution clause to the plaintiff for compulsory execution against the defendant.

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit for grant of execution clause, the subject of examination is limited to the requirements for grant of execution clause, including the fulfillment of conditions or the fact of succession. Therefore, it is not allowed for an obligor to assert in a lawsuit for objection against a claim under Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act, the reason for objection in

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93087, Apr. 13, 2012). Defendant’s assertion is not related to the requirements for granting grant of execution clause, and thus, no further examination is required.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.