1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2012, the Defendant issued an order to pay the Plaintiff KRW 13,00,000 and KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the instant payment order to the day of full payment. The Defendant applied for payment order to the Busan District Court No. 2012 tea358, and issued an order to pay the Plaintiff KRW 13,00,000 to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"). B.

The instant payment order was served on March 20, 2012 on the Plaintiff, and it became final and conclusive on April 4, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an objection.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The person who borrowed KRW 13,00,000 from the instant payment order is not the Plaintiff but E. The Plaintiff made a confession contrary to the fact that the Plaintiff was erroneous in the first instance trial. Even if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 13,00,000 from the Defendant, the confession that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff should be revoked. (ii) Even if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 13,00,000 from the Defendant, the above loan shall not be claimed unless the settlement of profits related to the multi-household housing construction on the ground of the macro-si F in accordance with the statement of performance (Evidence 6) is made, unless the amount of the above loan is settled, and even if the amount of the loan is settled, the Plaintiff remains to receive more profits.

3. Therefore, compulsory execution under the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. The Defendant lent KRW 13,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant payment order is justifiable.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 13,000,000 from the Defendant in order to determine whether the borrower was the party to the loan, and the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 13,000,000 from the Defendant in order to cancel the provisional registration of the person holding the provisional registration established on the C Forest and Forest in August 18, 2011 at the time of the Plaintiff’s holding as the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff was led to a confession of the above borrowed facts on the fifth day of pleading in the first instance.