1. The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff is based on the payment order of the Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea136190.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a credit card issuance contract (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) with Choung Bank and foreign exchange cards.

B. Solomon Mutual Savings Bank received claims against the Plaintiff under each of the above contracts from Choung-man Mutual Savings Bank or foreign exchange cards, and the Defendant received again each of the above claims from Solomon Mutual Savings Bank on April 10, 2009.

C. On October 1, 2010, the Defendant filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiff on the basis of the above claim for transfer money, and on October 1, 2010, “the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from September 30, 2010 to the day of full payment, to the Defendant of KRW 3,216,423.” The payment order was issued and confirmed around that time.

(Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea136190, hereinafter referred to as the "instant payment order"). 【No dispute exists concerning the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers)

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case was concluded with the lack of mental capacity, and thus the above contract is null and void.

Therefore, the payment order of this case should not be permitted as a deadline for invalid bonds.

3. Determination capacity means mental ability or intelligence that can reasonably determine its meaning or result on the basis of normal perception and towing. In particular, in a case where a certain juristic act is given with a special legal meaning or effect that makes it difficult to understand only the ordinary meaning of the act, it is required to understand not only the ordinary meaning of the act, but also the legal meaning or effect in order to recognize the capacity to act. The existence of capacity to act must be individually determined in relation to a specific juristic act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da29358 Decided September 22, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113 Decided October 11, 2002, etc.). A. 5.