1. The Defendant’s case concerning the purchase price of goods at the Incheon District Court Branch Kimpo-si, 201No. 77 against the Plaintiff.

1. On January 21, 2011, the Defendant against the Plaintiff for a payment order issued on January 21, 201 by requesting the payment order from the Incheon District Court Branching Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 201, that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant 41,786,420 won and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from January 25, 2011 to the date of full payment,” and the fact that the above payment order became final and conclusive on February 8, 2011 does not conflict between the parties.

2. The summary of the party's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case, and the defendant, as to the non-permission of compulsory execution on the ground that the plaintiff fully repaid the debt due to the above payment order, the defendant, after the payment order became final and conclusive, continuously changed the supply of the goods by finding the defendant and paying the debt due to the payment order. The plaintiff asserted that the amount received from the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement on the appropriation of performance was appropriated prior to the repayment of other debts.

3. Determination

A. There is no dispute between the parties who received money sufficient to repay the full amount when the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was preferentially appropriated for the obligation under the above payment order due to the lack of the agreement on appropriation of performance. The key issue of this case is whether there was an agreement on appropriation of performance between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to preferentially cover the obligation under the above payment order, not the obligation under the above payment order.

B. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement on the appropriation of debt between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(20% of the damages for delay shall be the same as the damages for delay and shall be the same as the damages for delay.

Therefore, the debt due to the above payment order was fully repaid.

Since the defendant's compulsory execution based on the above payment order against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so ordered as per Disposition.