1. The Defendant’s price for the goods offered by the District Court No. 2005 tea5453, and the same court No. 2015 tea363 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2005, the Defendant filed a payment order (this court No. 2005 tea5453) against the Plaintiff and B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and filed a payment order (this court No. 2005 tea543) on June 3, 2005, and on June 3, 2005, “the Plaintiff and B shall pay to the Defendant 110,040,650 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment” (the first payment order of this case).

(2) On June 23, 2015, the above payment order was received, and the above payment order was finalized on July 12, 2005. The defendant filed a second payment order against the plaintiff on June 23, 2015 for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the payment order under the first payment order, and on June 23, 2015, "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 10,040,650 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 28, 2005 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the second payment order"), and the above payment order was finalized on August 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff agreed to guarantee the defendant B's obligation to the defendant or jointly and severally liable. Thus, there is no debt such as the cause of the claim for the payment order Nos. 1 and 2 of this case.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the instant payment order should not be permitted.

B. The defendant asserted that he/she would jointly and severally repay his/her obligation with the plaintiff B.

In addition, the second payment order against the plaintiff was duly served by C by the plaintiff's spouse, and the plaintiff did not raise an objection against it, and thereafter, in the case of the second payment order for property ordering the above payment order, the court on June 22, 2016.