1. The payment order in the Seoul Central District Court 2013Hu117121 between C and the Defendant is issued.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, C Co., Ltd., upon receiving a payment order from the Defendant on June 10, 2013 under the payment order issued by the court No. 20171, Jun. 10, 2013, the said payment order became final and conclusive. The Plaintiff was entrusted with the authority to transfer claims based on the above payment order and to notify the assignment of claims from D Co., Ltd. on February 20, 2014, and the notice of transfer sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was not delivered to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff could recognize the fact that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the junior administrative officer of this court should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff who is the successor of the creditor indicated in the above payment order.

2. The defendant's argument that the defendant's claim was proved by the above payment order had already been completed, and the remaining amount of the acquisition amount claimed by the plaintiff in this case is excessive, so that the plaintiff cannot respond to the claim in this case.

However, in a lawsuit for grant of execution clause, the subject of hearing is limited to the requirements for grant of execution clause, including the fulfillment of conditions or the fact of succession, and it is not permissible for an obligor to assert in a lawsuit for objection against a claim under Article 4 of the Civil Execution Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93087, Apr. 13, 2012). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for grant of execution clause cannot be denied on the grounds alleged by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.