1. The defendant's compulsory collection against the plaintiff was based on the Daejeon District Court's 2010 tea 4575 payment order.

1. Basic facts

A. B (A) on March 22, 2009, prepared and delivered a “debt repayment plan” with the content that the Defendant redeems KRW 52,000,000 to the period from April 22, 2009, and signed and sealed the Plaintiff’s name and resident registration number in the guarantor column.

B. B: (a) March 25, 2009, the Defendant.

The “written promise to repay obligations (other than goods price)” containing a plan to repay the same purport as that of the foregoing paragraph was re-written and issued, and the Plaintiff’s name, address, resident registration number, and telephone number was written in the guarantor column and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal.

C. In 2010, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order with the Plaintiff and B seeking payment of KRW 50,000,000,000, excluding KRW 2,000,000, out of the reimbursement amount of KRW 52,000. On January 4, 2011, the court issued a payment order jointly and severally to the Defendant for the amount of KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay from June 1, 2007.

The above payment order was finalized on February 16, 201 as the plaintiff did not object to the payment order.

(hereinafter referred to as "the payment order in this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted since he did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the debt owed to the defendant B.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that as the defendant signed a joint and several guarantee contract on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has a duty to repay the debt as a joint and several surety.

B. Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that an order for payment that has become final and conclusive shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. However, it is different from Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, which limits the grounds for objection to a final and conclusive judgment to the occurrence of a judgment (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings, subsequent