1. The acquisition amount between Co., Ltd. E (F) and the Defendant, as Seoul Western District Court 2014Hu62257;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 13, 2014, the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the Defendant on the date following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served to Nonparty Co., Ltd. for KRW 2,903,317 and KRW 2,549,833 among the KRW 2,54,000,000 from the Seoul Western District Court (hereinafter “F”) and the said payment order was finalized on October 31, 2014.

B. On February 27, 2019, Nonparty Company transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff.

C. On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims, but the notification was not served on the Defendant.

The plaintiff did not receive an execution clause to succeed to the payment order of this case due to the impossibility of being served with the notice of assignment of claims. As such, the plaintiff expressed his intention to notify the above assignment of claims as the service of the complaint of this case, and the warden of this case served the defendant on January 9, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the plaintiff was acquired by the non-party company's claim based on the payment order of this case from the non-party company after the payment order was decided, the Seoul Western District Court, etc. should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff for compulsory execution against the defendant.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant had already completed the repayment of the instant claim.

However, 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 and the fact of succession.