1. The Defendant’s order of payment order (2013j5502) issued on February 5, 2014 against the Plaintiff is based on the original copy of the Defendant’s order of payment.

1. The Defendant alleged that, on August 21, 2006, the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 150 million, including KRW 100 million, to the Plaintiff at 16% per annum, and that, on October 11, 2006, KRW 150 million, KRW 160,000,000 per annum, etc., the Defendant applied for a payment order with the Jinyang District Court Decision 2013 tea502. On February 5, 2014, the Defendant received a payment order with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 150,000,000 to the Defendant and its delay damages (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The Plaintiff did not raise any objection, and there is no dispute between the parties that the instant payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the payment order of this case is null and void since C created a false executive title by seeking to apply for a compulsory auction against the plaintiff's real estate at the time of the time, thereby creating a false executive title to participate in the distribution procedure, it shall be deemed null and void since C created a debt of KRW 150 million with the defendant, even though it did not have a debt against the defendant, so compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the total amount of KRW 150 million in the claim amount of the payment order of this case is not a false bond, but the above KRW 150 million includes the claim amount of KRW 34 million in the contract amount to be received by the defendant from the plaintiff, and that this part is valid. Since the plaintiff paid part of it thereafter, the claim amount of KRW 19,274,449 still remains in the contract amount of KRW 19,274,449 is valid within the limit of this claim.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, include only the loan amount of KRW 150 million in the application for the payment order of this case, i.e., the loan amount of KRW 150 million, without any indication as to the contract amount. At the time, the defendant at the time, the second loan certificate (a loan of KRW 50 million as of August 21, 2006, KRW 100 million as of October 11, 2006) made by falsity as supporting documents.