1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff was made based on the payment order in Seoul Northern District Court 201 tea7958.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U.S. P.Y.”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of 2,321 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) prior to C in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “U.S.”), and rendered a judgment in favor of some of the winning courts ordering simultaneous performance, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2012, based on the final and conclusive judgment.

B. On July 19, 201, the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s natives of the Plaintiff during the appellate trial of the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration, was subject to the Seoul Northern District Court’s decision of provisional attachment of KRW 50,000,000 against the Plaintiff regarding the instant real estate at the Seoul Northern District Court. On the same day, the provisional attachment registration of the instant real estate was completed.

The Defendant applied for a payment order (Seoul Northern District Court 201j7958) on the amount of claims for provisional seizure based on the Plaintiff’s loan certificate (Evidence A4) and received a payment order on October 25, 201 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the instant payment order was finalized on November 2, 2011.

On March 4, 2014, according to the Defendant’s application that issued the instant payment order as the executive title, the procedure for compulsory auction was initiated regarding the instant real estate.

C. On January 12, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as the Defendant on the ground of the contract to establish a contract on July 9, 2007, with respect to the instant real estate under Article 3200 of the Daejeon District Court’s receipt of a branch court support for the Daejeon District Court on January 12, 2012.

Afterwards, the Daejeon District Court filed a claim suit against the defendant, claiming that the provisional attachment registration of the defendant and the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of the real estate of this case were based on the false agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.