1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Order No. 201Da6544 dated August 23, 2011.

1. Confirmation of payment orders:

A. The Defendant asserted that “the Defendant lent KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff on May 10, 2006,” and filed an application with this court for a payment order seeking the payment of the above loan claim (hereinafter “the instant loan”). On August 23, 2011, the court issued the payment order (hereinafter “the instant payment order”) to the Defendant that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 25 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.”

B. On August 29, 201, the Plaintiff was served with the instant payment order, but did not file an objection within the lawful period of objection, and the instant payment order became final and conclusive on September 15, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims and defenses by the parties;

A. The purport of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant introduced the Plaintiff to purchase the land of 22 parcels owned by C, etc., and received at the expense of repair, and the Defendant received the certificate of borrowing as evidence.

B. On October 28, 2006, the Plaintiff’s assertion and defense purport of the instant loan were fully repaid.

In electively, if the instant loan is to be paid to the Defendant under the pretext of brokerage commission as alleged by the Defendant, it is null and void because the Defendant, not a licensed real estate agent, agrees to mediate and receive land without filing for registration as a licensed real estate agent

3. Determination

A. Although the payment order of the legal doctrine of a claim objection has become final and conclusive and the same order does not take place, and thus, the restriction is not applicable to a claim objection lawsuit based on the time limit of res judicata (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act). In a lawsuit seeking the objection, the determination can be made as to all the claim grounds stated in the payment order. In such cases, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claimant is the defendant in the lawsuit claiming the objection (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73966, Jul. 9, 2009), the payment order is the payment order.