1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was issued on September 12, 2012 by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 tea 50877.

1. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim. Considering the purport of the argument in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, the defendant applied for a payment order (Seoul Eastern District Court 2012Guj 50877) against the plaintiff. On September 12, 2012, the above court issued a payment order (hereinafter "relevant payment order of this case") stating that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 9,193,827 won and 5,029,265 won with 24% interest per annum from September 10, 2012 to the day of full payment, and the defendant's related payment order of this case shall be served as the plaintiff's entitlement to the payment order of this case to the plaintiff 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and the plaintiff shall be exempted from the liability of the plaintiff 2, 3012 excluding the plaintiff's repayment order of this case's bankruptcy claim.

2. The defendant's defense asserted that the plaintiff's liability is not exempted because of the plaintiff's bad faith that the claim based on the payment order of this case was not entered in the above creditor's list. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff omitted his claim based on the payment order of this case in bad faith. Thus, the defendant's defense is not acceptable.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.