1. The Defendant’s payment order based on the payment order for the guaranteed debt case against the Plaintiff at the Daegu District Court 2016 tea3586.

In full view of the purport of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the defendant lent money to the plaintiff's father C (transfer of the loan to the account in the name of the plaintiff), and at that time, C entered the plaintiff as the guarantor in the loan certificate (Evidence No. 2) prepared by the defendant, and the defendant applied for a payment order claiming the performance of the guaranteed obligation against the plaintiff based on the loan certificate and received the payment order as stated in the order, and the order became final and conclusive (Seoul District Court 2016Hu3586).

However, even after the payment order has become final and conclusive because it has no res judicata effect, the absence and extinguishment of the claim can be contested. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff guaranteed the above loan to the defendant C, compulsory execution based on the above payment order is not permissible.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking non-permission of compulsory execution is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.