1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the order for return of unjust enrichment by Busan District Court Decision 2017 tea8279.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2014, the Defendant received a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the Plaintiff on June 11, 2014, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount equivalent to KRW 146,650,000 per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on July 10, 2014.

B. On July 11, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with this court for a provisional attachment and assignment order (2014TTT 17834) to transfer the debtor to the provisional attachment with the Plaintiff and the garnishee as Ulsan Metropolitan City. On July 14, 2014, the Defendant was determined by this court that “The provisional attachment against KRW 46,650,000, out of KRW 146,650,000, out of KRW 146,650,000, pursuant to the provisional attachment of claims between the Defendant and the Plaintiff pursuant to the provisional attachment of claims between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the provisional attachment against KRW 46,650,000, out of KRW 146,650,000, among the claims against the Defendant and the Plaintiff, shall be transferred to the original attachment, and the remainder amount of KRW 33,53,200

C. On August 29, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for the attachment and assignment order (2014TTT) with the obligor with the Busan District Court Branch Branch as the Plaintiff and the garnishee as the Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City. On September 11, 2014, the lower court rendered a decision that “The claim against the Defendant and the Plaintiff against KRW 66,650,000, out of KRW 146,650 based on the original copy of the instant payment order, shall be seized, and the seized claim shall be entirely substituted for the payment of the seized claim to the Defendant.”

On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarized deed of money loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 659, 2014, stating that “The Defendant loaned KRW 140,000,000 to the Plaintiff; KRW 30,000,000 to November 20, 2014; the Plaintiff reimburses KRW 110,00,000 until March 31, 2015; C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations; and the rate of delay damages shall be 20% per annum”) by a notary public.

E. Fhigh schools are from August 2014 to August 2016.