The Cheongju District Court 2017j738 enforced enforcement order against the plaintiff is enforced by the defendant.

The defendant, as C, lent D's trade name to D, and the plaintiff, as E's mother, as E's mother, E, C, and F, lent its business name to G "G" in the frequency of "G". The defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff as a demand case for the payment of goods, and the above payment order (the court No. 2017th 738 case) became final and conclusive on April 18, 2017, is not disputed between the parties or recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings.

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 3 and the entire arguments, E, C, and F operated the frequency of "G" as a partner of the Dong, which led to a situation in which the enemy was accumulated within 4 months, and the above three persons decided to terminate the management of the above frequency house on December 7, 2017, and C, on December 7, 2017, can be acknowledged that the amount of the premium that C supplied to the above frequency by the head of Tong was withdrawn, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

According to the above facts, in this case where C's payment of debt was already paid, and there was no other claim that the Defendant had against the Plaintiff regarding the operation of the above frequency of collection and the termination of business management, the Defendant's request for payment order against the Plaintiff is not reasonable, and therefore, the Defendant's request for payment order against the Plaintiff shall be dismissed for compulsory execution based on the payment order with executory power of 2017 tea 738 of the court against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.