The original of the payment order with executory power in the Seoul Western District Court 2013J 86505 case between the defendant and D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order of the acquisition amount with Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013 tea86505, Dec. 23, 2013, the said court issued a payment order against the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay damages for delay of KRW 24,820,052 on D and KRW 6,786,616 among them,” which became final and conclusive on January 17, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The Plaintiff received a claim based on the instant payment order from D on February 27, 2019, and sent a notice of assignment of claim to the Defendant, but did not reach the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Execution Act, an execution clause may be granted for a successor of the creditor indicated in the judgment. In such cases, when the necessary verification is impossible, the successor of the creditor may file a lawsuit for the grant of execution clause with the court of first instance.

The provisions of Articles 31 and 33 of the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the compulsory execution based on the finalized payment order.

(Article 56 Subparag. 3 and Article 57 of the Civil Execution Act). In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff, a creditor indicated in the instant payment order, who is the Plaintiff, cannot certify the succession due to the failure to reach the notification of the assignment of claims to the Defendant, the debtor, and thus, can file a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the execution clause with this court.

Therefore, regarding the executory payment order copy of the Seoul Western District Court 2013j. 86505 p.m. between the defendant and D, the Seoul Western District Court, etc. should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff who is the successor of D for compulsory execution against the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.