1. The Defendant’s payment order for the construction cost in the case of the Changwon District Court, Changnam District Court, 2012j135 against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on November 14, 201, and KRW 10,000,000 on November 23, 201 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On the ground that the Defendant did not receive the instant loan, etc. against the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendant applied for a payment order with the Changwon District Court 2012Ra135, Changnam District Court 2012, and on March 12, 2012, issued a payment order with the above court stating that “59,000,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of complete payment.”

hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"

(C) The instant payment order was served on March 14, 2012 on the Plaintiff, and was finalized on March 29, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an objection against it. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap’s evidence No. 1, Eul’s evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The loan of this case 39 million won, excluding the loan of this case 20 million won among the 59 million won payment order of this case, was paid by C. Thus, the defendant did not have the right to claim this part. 2) The loan of this case was borrowed from the defendant, and the plaintiff did not borrow it.

3) In the case of multi-household E (hereinafter “instant construction”) under the performance memorandum (Evidence A2) prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the multi-household E (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(B) The settlement of profits related to the instant payment order has not yet been made. The Plaintiff’s profit to be paid is KRW 192,00,000, and if the Plaintiff deducts the instant loan from the said profit, the Plaintiff would instead be paid the settlement amount from the Defendant. Therefore, there is no loan obligation against the Defendant. (B) Determination 1 on KRW 39,00,000, which exceeds the instant loan, includes not only the instant loan but also KRW 39,00,000 that C lent to the Plaintiff.