A. On July 14, 2015, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order of the claim for the player management expenses against the Plaintiff by Suwon District Court Decision 2014Hu3478, Suwon District Court Decision 2014Da3478, which rendered an executory payment order for the claim for the lease deposit against the Defendant, as the Suwon District Court Decision 2015Da101628, on July 14, 2015, upon which the Defendant received the seizure and collection order of the said claim against the Plaintiff. The above collection order for the said claim seizure and collection (hereinafter “the instant collection order”) was served on the Plaintiff on July 16, 2015.

B. Based on the collection order of this case, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of the collection amount under Suwon District Court Decision 2015 tea16267, Dec. 11, 2015, the Defendant issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9,342,80, and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day when the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment. The Plaintiff did not raise an objection after being served on December 17, 2015, and the said payment order became final and conclusive as it is.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, on July 16, 2015, when receiving the instant collection order, there is no claim for the refund of the player management expenses of the superior agent, the compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

Therefore, since the final and conclusive payment order does not take place as res judicata effect, the obligor may bring a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim, and bring a lawsuit of demurrer against the failure or invalidation of the claim claim arising prior to the issuance of the payment order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). Thus, the payment order of this case is valid only for the part with collection authority under the collection order of this case at the time the Defendant issued the payment order of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff collected the instant collection order.