1. The Seoul Eastern District Court 201j5363 decided to make an executory payment order against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2011, the Defendant applied for a loan payment order of KRW 60 million against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Jeon Nam-nam District Court 201j5363, Seoul Eastern District Court, and the said court issued a payment order on June 15, 201 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order became final and conclusive on August 5, 201.

B. Upon the instant payment order, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff as the District Court 2016TTT1109, and the said court issued a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s claim against the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation on July 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant only lent money to the plaintiff's husband C, and did not lend money to the plaintiff, and there is no fact that the plaintiff joint and several surety or agreed to repay the loan debt of the plaintiff C.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. First of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant confirmed the intent of repayment from the Plaintiff at the time of lending money to C, and remitted money to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, which constitutes a joint borrower with C.

Preliminaryly, even if the Plaintiff is not the borrower, C borrowed money from the Defendant for the purpose of using it as a common life of the married couple, and the Plaintiff knowingly borrowed money from the Defendant and used it for the cost of living. As C received money from the Defendant, C’s act of borrowing money constitutes an act of ordinary family affairs between husband and wife, and thus, C is liable

3. Determination

A. In the case of a final and conclusive order of payment, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred before the order of payment was issued may be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the order of payment, and the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection against such a claim.