1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant's High Court's High Court's High Court's High Court for the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 9, 2017, the Defendant remitted KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff’s wife D’s account from the account in a de facto marital relationship (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. The Defendant, upon filing an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the return of the loan with the Jung-gu District Court High Court High Court Decision 2017 tea8284, the Defendant claimed that “the Defendant stated on May 9, 2017 (the grounds for filing the application for the payment order as “ May 19, 2017,” but “the Plaintiff appears to have leased KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff” on December 5, 2017,” and the said court issued the payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 25 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the authentic copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The payment order was finalized around that time.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s instant money was transferred and lent from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account designated by the Defendant, and around that time the Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty E and F was transferred to the Defendant, and the repayment of the Plaintiff’s loan amounting to KRW 10 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and ② the Plaintiff’s honorarium for having the Defendant receive G Corporation and H construction.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case under the premise that the money of this case is a loan bond should be dismissed.

B. The Defendant’s instant money is a loan.

In addition, on June 19, 2015, the borrowed money borrowed from the Plaintiff and paid in cash around May 3, 2016.

Therefore, the payment order of this case is justified.

3. Determination

A. The objection to the claim is not raised even if the payment order has become final and conclusive, and the res judicata effect has not occurred.