1. The Defendant’s order for payment was issued against the Plaintiff on June 27, 201 by the Changwon District Court Branch for the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 4, 1996, the Plaintiff completed the marriage report with C on January 4, 199, and divorced on October 1, 2002.

B. On March 20, 1999, C, which was married with the Plaintiff, issued and delivered a letter to the Defendant stating that “C borrowed KRW 35,800,000 from the Defendant on March 20, 199 to the due date specified on June 20, 199 (hereinafter “each of the instant forms”), and C, without the Plaintiff’s consent, stated the Plaintiff’s name in the joint and several liability column of each of the instant forms of documents, and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal.

C. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order with the Changwon District Court for the payment order of KRW 201 tea 1858 on June 27, 2011, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 35,80,000 per annum from June 21, 1999 to the service date of the payment order and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on June 30, 201, and was finalized on July 15, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul's partial entry, Eul's witness Eul's witness's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Under the plaintiff's assertion, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted for the same reasons as the plaintiff's assertion.

1) The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for the instant damages, and since it did not have indicated the name or affixed the seal, it is not jointly and severally liable for the obligation to borrow money to the Defendant. 2) Even if the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable, the extinctive prescription of the claim under each of the instant agreements was completed when the Defendant applied for the instant payment order.

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, but the grounds for raising an objection to a final and conclusive judgment shall be concluded.