1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 199, the Plaintiff married with C on May 12, 199 and divorced on July 3, 2014.

The defendant is the mother of C.

B. Around June 2005, C prepared a certificate of borrowed money that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40,000,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowed money”) and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal imprint on the name next to the Plaintiff’s certificate of borrowed money.

C. On September 2005, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant loan certificate, which sought payment of KRW 40,000,000 from the Changwon District Court Decision 2005 tea5806, supra.

The payment order of Changwon District Court 2005Ka5806 was served on September 29, 2005 on the plaintiff's domicile and received by C, and no objection was raised, which became final and conclusive on October 14, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion did not borrow KRW 40,000,000 from the defendant.

The loan certificate of this case is forged by C using the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate.

Therefore, the execution based on the payment order of the Changwon District Court 2005j5806 should not be allowed.

3. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and Eul's testimony as a whole, around May 2005, the plaintiff borrowed 40,000,000 won from the defendant under the name of living expenses, deposit money, and other loans borrowed over several times prior to the above, and upon the plaintiff's consent, Eul prepared the loan certificate of this case using the plaintiff's seal imprint.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.