청구이의
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff on February 6, 2009 against the plaintiff is denied based on the payment order dated February 6, 2009.
2.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. In around 2008, the Plaintiff was charged with violating the Game Industry Promotion Act by this court 2008 Godan506. Around that time, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract in which the Defendant and the defense counsel are appointed with respect to the above criminal case (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”).
B. The defendant defenses the plaintiff in the above criminal case, and the plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of 15 million won in this court on May 6, 2008.
C. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of the contingent fee of KRW 2 million according to the instant delegation contract, as the court 2009 tea456.
On February 6, 2009, the Court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Defendant for the payment of KRW 2 million, KRW 5% per annum from May 7, 2008 to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.
On February 25, 2009, the payment order of this case became final and conclusive on February 25, 2009 because the Plaintiff was served with the payment order of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that "the plaintiff did not agree to pay the defendant the success fee of 2 million won when the plaintiff was sentenced to a fine at the time of the delegation contract of this case."
The defendant asserts that "the plaintiff was sentenced to a fine, and agreed to pay 2 million won for the success fee to the defendant."
B. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order with respect to the claim that was the cause of the claim for the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds of objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in the general civil procedure.
Therefore, there is an objection to the claim for the final payment order.