1. The Defendant’s payment order of the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court 201Da7985, Oct. 25, 201) against the Plaintiff is based on the payment order of 201Guj7985.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is C's children.

B. On March 2010, C made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant, even though he/she did not have the intent or ability to repay money within three months even if he/she borrowed money to a police officer, he/she may have the funds required to establish a company, may be repaid within three months with government subsidies, youth start-up funds, and bank security loans, which shall be included in the passbook and shall request the Defendant to send the remainder of the loans.” Accordingly, C has the Defendant borrow KRW 150 million as security of an apartment unit, etc. owned by the Defendant, and received a remittance of KRW 140,100,000,000 from which the interest on the loan for three months was deducted, as the loan was transferred to the account in the name of the Plaintiff around April 2, 2010.

C. On October 14, 201, the Defendant applied for a payment order of KRW 150 million from the same court on October 25, 2011, along with a copy, etc. of the above remittance passbook against the Plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201j7985, the Defendant paid KRW 150 million and delay damages.

‘A payment order' was issued, and the above payment order was finalized on November 26, 201, because the plaintiff did not raise an objection. D.

C On April 17, 2012, the aforementioned judgment became final and conclusive on November 23, 2012, when it was convicted on July 13, 2012 after being prosecuted with money by deceiving the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 to 9, the witness evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of the judgment, since a person who deceivings the defendant and defrauds the defendant about KRW 141 million as the borrowed money is not the plaintiff but the father C, the plaintiff's father is not the plaintiff. Thus, there was no loan claim of KRW 150 million under the monetary loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of the enforcement force of the above payment order is accepted due to the reasons.