1. On May 19, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court 2015Hu11794 claim against the Defendant’s network B.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for payment order with B, on May 14, 2015, seeking payment of the principal and interest of the above amount receivable (Seoul Central District Court 2015j. 11794) against B, after the Defendant transferred the claim against B of the Federation of Fisheries-Related Partnership (hereinafter “AF”) prior to the transfer of the claim against B.

C. Accordingly, on May 19, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court ordered the Defendant to pay the payment of KRW 65,322,690 and KRW 16,831,063 at a rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day when the original copy of the payment order was repaid. The above payment order was finalized around that time.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). D.

B Deceased on July 31, 2016, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties, who were successors, filed an application for the inheritance-limited approval with the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2016Ra1026, and filed an application on August 26, 2016.

E. Meanwhile, on the basis of the instant payment order, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, appointed parties C, and D seeking revocation of fraudulent act by Sungwon District Court Branching 2015Kadan226839, which was based on the instant payment order. On April 15, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment of accepting a claim for non-litigation by deeming the confession.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer money of this case was completed and extinguished before the application for the payment order of this case, compulsory execution based on the above payment order should be rejected.

B. The defendant did not file an application for the succession execution clause against the payment order of this case, and the plaintiff and the designated parties did not have the standing to be a party, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

In addition, the statute of limitations was interrupted since the deceased B and the Plaintiff renounced the statute of limitations interest, such as approving the obligation to collect the instant amount.

3. A lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for judgment on this safety defense shall be an executive title.