1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the payment order issued by the Seoul Central District Court 2016 tea290.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 9, 2016, when the Defendant: (a) requested the Defendant to publish the above film advertisement while performing the business of acting as an advertising agent for the film of “C”; (b) even if the Defendant provided the advertisement, the Defendant did not pay KRW 32.1 million to the Defendant; and (c) if the Plaintiff, the representative director of B, who was responsible for the Plaintiff, entered into a verbal agreement to pay the above advertising price, he/she applied for the payment order against the Plaintiff and B to the court for the payment of the above advertising price; (d) the payment order dated August 25, 2016 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was sent respectively to the Plaintiff and B on August 30, 2016, and the instant payment order became final and conclusive on September 14, 2016.

B. On October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for objection to the instant claim, and filed an application with the instant court for the suspension of compulsory execution against the instant payment order (2016 Chicago3221). On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff was subject to a ruling to suspend compulsory execution based on the instant payment order until the instant judgment is rendered, on condition that it would be a codined preparation with the instant court.

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

2. The judgment of the court below asserted that the plaintiff, the representative director B, was responsible for the claim for the payment order of this case, and that the defendant made a verbal agreement to pay the above advertising price to the defendant B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit, and as long as the defendant did not have a claim based on the above oral agreement against the plaintiff, compulsory execution against the plaintiff should be rejected.

In addition, in this case, although the defendant has the appearance of a legal entity B, its substance is merely the plaintiff's private enterprise behind the legal entity, and it constitutes a case where the plaintiff abused the legal entity by using its dominant position, and thus, B's obligation.