1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the payment order issued by the Gwangju District Court 2016 tea 1311.

1. Basic facts

A. B around November 2014, and around May 2015, C operated the automobile maintenance business under the trade name of “A”, respectively, by leasing part of the Plaintiff’s business place on the D ground of Sejong-si from the Plaintiff.

B. B and C were supplied with the automobile parts from the Defendant, and the Defendant failed to pay the automobile parts, on December 13, 2016, and the Defendant supplied the automobile parts to B and C, which were the Plaintiff’s employees, and did not receive the automobile parts payment amounting to KRW 48,797,765 (=27,156,346 C parts payment amounting to KRW 21,641,419), and against the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiff with the Gwangju District Court 2016 tea131.

C. On December 14, 2016, the above court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of complete payment, and the expenses for demand procedure,” which read “the Plaintiff shall pay the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the Defendant,” and the instant payment order was finalized on January 4, 2017 after the Plaintiff was served with the instant payment order on December 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 4, 11, and 12, witness B, and C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is merely that the defendant supplied the automobile parts to B and C, and the plaintiff does not bear the goods payment obligation against B and C.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) at the Plaintiff’s place of business, the Plaintiff, B, and C jointly carried out the joint business with the name of “A”. (2) or the Plaintiff, in violation of Article 57(1)1 of the Automobile Management Act, leased part of the Plaintiff’s place of business to B and C and had it carry out the business under its own name.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a joint business proprietor, the nominal lender, the illegal businessman, or the employer B, and C, bears the obligation to pay goods or compensate for damages to the Defendant B and C.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a payment order for which relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive, this is applicable.