The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court 2018Hu135993 Guarantee Money.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 6, 2014, C concluded a car lease succession contract under the name of the Defendant and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, and at its own discretion, the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety without the Plaintiff’s permission, and the principal signed and sealed the Plaintiff’s signature and seal on the joint and several surety column.

B. On December 17, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff with respect to the above contractual claims, and received the payment order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018 tea135993, hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 18,40,271 won and the amount of KRW 14,760,284 at the rate of 25% per annum from December 5, 2018 to the date of full payment.” The said payment order was finalized on January 4, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the joint and several surety of the contract of this case is a joint and several surety of the Plaintiff’s signature and seal are all forged by C, and the contract of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be deemed valid.

Therefore, since there is no claim for joint and several sureties against the plaintiff who was the cause of the claim for the payment order of this case, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. The defendant's assertion is that since the defendant received a decision of provisional seizure against real estate owned by the plaintiff and cancelled provisional seizure against real estate by filing an application for withdrawal or cancellation of provisional seizure against the real estate owned by the plaintiff, the defendant asserts that there is no reason to enforce compulsory execution and that the lawsuit of this case does not have a benefit to the protection of rights. However, as long as the lawsuit of objection is established and continues to exist effectively, the defendant'

3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasoning.