1. The Defendant’s payment order for the collection money case against the Plaintiff on March 4, 2016, Jincheon-gun District Court, Jincheon-gun, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against A seeking the payment of the guaranteed debt against the Plaintiff’s employee, and confirmed it upon the decision of performance recommendation. On February 17, 2016, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the reimbursement claim against A (hereinafter “instant collection order”), and the instant collection order was served on the Plaintiff on February 22, 2016.

B. Based on the collection order of this case, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking payment of the collection amount under the Jincheon-gun District Court 2016 tea72. On March 4, 2016, the Defendant issued an order for payment ordering the Plaintiff to pay 15% delayed damages from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order and the original copy of the payment order for the Plaintiff. The above payment order was finalized on March 26, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). D.

On April 11, 2016, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Bank of Korea (Cheongju District Court 2016TTT2049) from the instant payment order.

E. Meanwhile, after being served with the collection order of this case on February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,248,020 to A on March 10, 2016, and KRW 1,224,130 on April 8, 2016, and KRW 1,209,740 on May 10, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The decision on the payment order for which the decision has become final and conclusive does not take place res judicata, and the obligor may, by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim, contest against the cause of failure or invalidation of the claim claim which occurred before the issuance of the payment order

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). The instant payment order is valid only for the portion that the Plaintiff had the authority to collect according to the instant collection order at the time of issuing the instant payment order. The portion that A received after March 4, 2016 is the benefit that A received.