1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the defendant's wife C's husband's wife.

B. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff and C for a payment order of KRW 40,00,000 for a loan of KRW 40,000,000 with the Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea 24780, and the above court on June 3, 2015: “Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 40,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the day when the original copy of the payment order was served to the Defendant, and the above payment order became final and conclusive on June 27, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the plaintiff did not borrow KRW 40,000,00, which was the basis of the payment order of this case, from the defendant, and therefore, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be rejected.

However, comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 2-1, 1-2, 3, and 2-1, 1-2, and 3-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness C, the Plaintiff and C, who is the husband and wife, have borrowed a total of KRW 40 million from the Defendant several times from June 2012 to July 4, 2013 for living expenses, etc., and thereafter, C, with the Plaintiff’s consent on Oct. 30, 2013, may be recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 40,000,000.

Therefore, under the premise that there is no obligation to borrow KRW 40,000,000, which is the basis of the payment order of this case, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the refusal of compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.