1. Of the Defendant and D Co., Ltd, the payment order in the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 tea7195 was issued.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2015, Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) received an order to pay the acquisition amount from the Defendant as Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 tea7195, and the said order to pay was served on the Defendant on March 26, 2015, and became final and conclusive on April 10, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On April 19, 2016, Nonparty Company transferred to E the instant claim for the cause of the instant payment order, and on July 17, 2018, Nonparty Company E transferred the said claim to the Plaintiff.

On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims, but did not reach the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking into account the facts of Paragraph (1) of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is the successor to the claim for the payment order of this case. Thus, the Seoul Eastern District Court has the duty to grant the execution clause to the Plaintiff, the successor to the non-party company, for compulsory execution against the Defendant

In this regard, the defendant alleged that he applied for debt settlement to F, but the defendant's debt is extinguished solely on the ground that the defendant applied for credit recovery.

It is not possible to refuse the performance of the obligation. Moreover, it is not permissible to limit the subject matter of the examination in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause only with the fulfillment of the conditions or the existence of succession, and to simply assert the grounds for objection regarding the claim in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause without filing a lawsuit for objection against the claim.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.