1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Incheon District Court Decision 2016 tea33669.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an internal director of Dong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City C, Inc. D (hereinafter “D”).

B. The Defendant asserted to the effect that “The construction work for the Gyeonggi-si E facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”) was not paid KRW 11,100,000 even after the Plaintiff was awarded a contract and completed the construction work,” and filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment order with the Incheon District Court 2016 tea33669.

On December 14, 2016, the above court issued a payment order to the effect that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 1,100,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 10% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment. Expenses for demand procedure 49,200 won shall be borne by the plaintiff." The above payment order was served to the plaintiff on December 15, 2016 and confirmed on December 30, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The evidence presented alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the other party to whom the instant construction was contracted is the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff bears the obligation to pay the construction price stated in the instant payment order to the Defendant.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the other party to whom the Defendant contracted the instant construction work appears to be D, not the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.