1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant against the Plaintiff at the Daegu District Court Decision 2016 tea6531 was made on January 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 14, 2016, the Defendant issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Plaintiff, which stated that “14 million won and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the Plaintiff,” and the said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on January 13, 2017, and became final and conclusive on February 1, 2017.

B. From 2002 to 2006, the Plaintiff served as the head of the Daegu branch office of the door-to-door sales company, “C” and became aware of the Defendant as the customer of the said company.

In around 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant re-converted to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to name the “AD”.

C. On April 18, 2008, the Defendant remitted KRW 27 million from Defendant E’s account to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff. On April 19, 2008, the Plaintiff wired KRW 9 million to F who operates door-to-door sales companies on April 19, 2008 and KRW 18 million to the same G.

Afterward, the Plaintiff received KRW 37.1 million from F or G to the Plaintiff’s account as indicated in the table below, and remitted KRW 14 million to the Defendant’s account in his name on May 16, 2008, KRW 6 million on June 29, 2008, KRW 4 million on June 3, 2008, and KRW 14 million on June 14, 2008.

The fact that, on May 22, 2008, KRW 6.3 million G G 200,000 won on April 22, 2008, KRW 3.3 million on May 6, 2008, F F 4.3 million on May 17, 2008, KRW 5.7 million on May 20, 2008, KRW 6.7 million on May 23, 2008, KRW 7.5 million on May 24, 2008, KRW 9.6 million on May 29, 2008, KRW 7.5 million on May 2008, KRW 5 million on May 29, 2008, KRW 7.5 million on May 301, 2008, KRW 7.5 million on May 28, 2008, KRW 7.5 million on May 301 million on May 29, 2008

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties did not borrow money from the defendant.

On April 2008, the Plaintiff would make an investment from the Defendant to door-to-door sales business, and let the Plaintiff use the Plaintiff’s name of passbook.