1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,890,205,996 for the Plaintiff and KRW 9% per annum from April 9, 2014 to January 30, 2015.

1. The defendant's judgment as to the main defense of the defendant's main defense does not exist with the execution claim of the collection order (Seoul Southern District Court 2013TTTT 23236), which is the basis of the plaintiff's claim, and therefore, the above collection order has no effect, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and it

However, the absence of an execution bond is merely a cause for the obligor to assert in the lawsuit of demurrer against the claim, and the executor obligor or the third obligor cannot serve as a ground for an immediate appeal against the collection order (see Supreme Court Order 95Ma601, 602, Nov. 25, 1996). Therefore, the Defendant’s main safety claim as mentioned above is not justified without any need to further examine the remainder of the claim.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including documentary evidence with provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "C") leased KRW 3,487,265,050 to the defendant on April 18, 2010 at maturity of 30, and annual interest rate of KRW 9% (hereinafter "loan of this case"). The plaintiff filed with the Seoul Southern District Court for the payment order of KRW 3,457,938,10 with the Seoul Southern District Court for the payment order of KRW 3,47,9362 with the above court and received the payment order as the payment order of KRW 3,4762, and the provisional appeal of this case against the defendant was dismissed by the court of Seoul Southern District Court as the above 2013Da14762, the provisional appeal of this case was dismissed by the court of 2013Da2341436, supra.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant did not have any special reason to the plaintiff.