1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the payment order of Seoul Central District Court 2007 tea15733.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 14, 2007, the Solomon Mutual Savings Bank that acquired the claim from the foreign exchange credit card company was issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff was paid to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank at the rate of 20% per annum from August 7, 2007 to the day of full payment, with the amount of KRW 3,935,760 as well as KRW 1,90,00 as to KRW 3,95,760 as well as the amount of KRW 1,90 as to KRW 3,95,760 as well as the amount of KRW 1,90 from August 7, 2007 to the day of full payment”).

B. The instant payment order was finalized on October 17, 2007 as the Plaintiff did not raise an objection.

C. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant, as a successor to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, received an execution clause succeeding to the instant payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the above payment order should not be permitted since the plaintiff had been issued a credit card from the foreign exchange credit card company as to the credit card payment obligation under the payment order of this case.

On March 2002, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the credit card price liability according to the payment order of this case, since the plaintiff used the credit card application to the foreign exchange credit card company on or around March 2002 and delayed the credit card price.

3. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the Plaintiff’s claim against the final and conclusive payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order for the failure or invalidity of the claim that became the cause of the claim of the payment order before the issuance of the payment order. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant in a lawsuit of objection against the final and conclusive payment order is in accordance with the burden of proof distribution in general civil procedure.