1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on January 20, 2015, based on the payment order issued on the order issued on January 20, 2015 by this Court.

2.

1. Confirmation, etc. of payment orders:

A. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant received a payment order ordering C and D to pay KRW 20,000,000 as loans and delay damages therefor with respect to C and D, this Court Decision 201Da1388, which became final and conclusive on June 5, 2014. The payment order was served on C and D, respectively, on June 20, 2014.

B. On December 3, 2014, the Defendant was issued an attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “instant claim attachment and assignment order”) with the title of execution of the said payment order issued by the Changwon District Court 2014T, the obligor C, the third obligor, the amount of which is KRW 20,000,000, and the claim against which C is the claim for return of lease deposit held by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim attachment and assignment order”).

C. Thereafter, the instant claim attachment and assignment order was served on December 5, 2014 to the Plaintiff, and on December 15, 2014 to C, and the Plaintiff and C did not raise any objection thereto, and the instant claim attachment and assignment order became final and conclusive on December 23, 2014.

As of January 20, 2015, the Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 10,000,000 for the full payment of KRW 10,000 as well as damages for delay.

E. The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on January 22, 2015, and the instant payment order became final and conclusive on February 6, 2015, because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim is that there is no claim for refund of deposit against the Plaintiff, which is a seized claim according to the instant claim attachment and assignment order.

C is the Plaintiff's friendship, but only the Plaintiff's domicile was transferred to the Plaintiff's domicile, and it did not actually reside, and no lease contract was concluded.

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

B. The defendant.