1. The Defendant’s payment order for the loans against the Plaintiff on March 31, 2015, Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015Da1777.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2015, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff and C as Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Hu1777, and the said court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “The Plaintiff and C jointly and severally paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 30 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

On April 2, 2015, the original copy of the payment order was served on the plaintiff on April 2, 2015 and became final and conclusive on April 17, 2015.

B. Based on the instant payment order, the Defendant received the claim attachment and collection order from the Incheon District Court 2015TTT22436, based on the Incheon District Court’s order, and served the Plaintiff with the above claim attachment and collection order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff of the party party's assertion that all South-Nam transferred 30 million won under the name of the loan brokerage commission to the defendant's account, and that the plaintiff only transferred 28 million won after deducting 2 million won of child support from the above money from the above money to C on that day, and did not bear any obligation to the defendant. Thus, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied.

As to this, the defendant lent KRW 30 million to C, who is the former husband of the plaintiff, at the request of C, transferred KRW 30 million to the plaintiff's account, and the plaintiff agreed to or impliedly consented to the use of his account by C. Thus, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with C to pay KRW 30 million to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

B. In the case of a payment order for which judgment has become final and conclusive, the grounds for failure or invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act).