1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Sungwon (hereinafter “Ssungsung”) for the claim for the return of tin Han-sung (Seoul District Court Branch 2012Kadan5827, Oct. 18, 2012. In the said litigation proceedings, the Plaintiff entered into a mediation to the effect that “The obligation against the Plaintiff is extinguished if it repaid the principal amount of KRW 45,000,000,000,000,000, which is calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.” However, if it is not paid until the above date, the Plaintiff shall pay the amount by adding the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

B. The Plaintiff requested the Daejeon District Court to issue a seizure and collection order as to the claim for the refund of deposit against the Defendant of Sungwon-Gyeongng Co., Ltd. under the above conciliation protocol as the claim amounting to KRW 50,000,000 according to the above conciliation protocol. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff received the seizure and collection order of the claim (hereinafter “instant collection order”). The instant collection order was served on the Defendant on the same day, and became final and conclusive around that day.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50,000,000 won with the claim that the plaintiff acquired the collection right by virtue of the collection order of this case and delay damages.

B. The defendant's defense, etc. 1) The defendant has deposited the full amount of the debt that the defendant bears against the sexual helper, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for collection based on the collection order of this case against the defendant has been extinguished. In full view of each of the items mentioned above, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 9 (the number of claims can be included) and the whole purport of the argument, the sexual helper must be viewed from the defendant.