1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff was conducted based on the payment order No. 2015 tea 106, Youngju District Court (Cheongju District Court).

1. Basic facts

A. On July 7, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for payment order with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), stating that “the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for 12,650,000 won for construction work under the Act on the Construction of the Hypon Construction in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Defendant completed the construction work,” against the Defendant (hereinafter “Plaintiff, regardless of whether it was before or after the alteration of the trade name: the Cheongsung-dong Construction Corporation; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On July 9, 2015, the above court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “The debtor (the plaintiff) shall pay to the creditor (the defendant) the amount of KRW 12,650,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of service of the payment order until the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The original copy of the instant payment order was served on July 13, 2015 on the Plaintiff, and became final and conclusive on July 28, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute or no clear dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 5 (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s 2014 D Income Support Project (B pages) from C Village Association (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(1) After being awarded a contract, Seosan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Seosan Construction”)

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant is a person who has been sub-subcontracted with respect to the instant miscellaneous construction work from Seosan Construction, and can seek payment of the said construction cost for Seosan Construction, and cannot seek payment for the full amount of the construction cost from Seosan Construction.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the construction work of the instant construction work is 12,650,000 won, directly from the Plaintiff on October 2014.