1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the payment order in the Changwon District Court 2014 tea3022.

1. The Defendant, for which the payment order became final and conclusive, filed an application for the payment order with the Changwon District Court Decision 2014j3022 by asserting that the Plaintiff had received KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff as the expense for stage production and the use of sound, lighting equipment sirens. The payment order became final and conclusive on November 28, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, and entry of Gap evidence No. 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no transaction with the defendant for goods, and there is no obligation to pay for the goods.

Plaintiff

The letter of payment dated February 27, 2013 (No. 5; hereinafter “instant letter of payment”) written in the name of A is written without authority by A, and the Plaintiff did not confer the power of representation on A with respect to the preparation of the said letter of payment.

B. The defendant's assertion received a written rejection of payment from A, the plaintiff's agent.

A is a director and employee of the Plaintiff.

This part of the defendant's assertion is likely to be detrimental to the defendant's assertion as an expression agent under Articles 125 through 126 of the Civil Code.

3. Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the instant written rejection of payment was made by A, who is not the representative director of the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that A had the authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff.

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the facts that the defendant had the plaintiff's employee identification at the time of the preparation of the statement of payment in this case, but the circumstances alone indicate that the plaintiff granted the right of representation on the preparation of the statement of payment in this case to A.

or it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant has a reasonable reason to believe that the defendant has the authority to prepare the above payment note to A, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is no other evidence.

(A) there is no evidence to acknowledge that A was a director of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, it is different.