A. On May 30, 2014, C applied for a payment order to the effect that “the Defendant (referring to the Plaintiff in this case) borrowed KRW 200,000,000 from C on May 30, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant money”) and not repaid the said money,” from the above court on January 4, 2016, “the Defendant (referring to the Plaintiff in this case) shall pay to C 200,000,000 won per annum from May 30, 2014 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was received and finalized on January 21, 2016.

B. C transferred claims based on the instant payment order to the Defendant on August 9, 2018, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims on August 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 11 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff received the instant money from Nonparty E at the time upon Nonparty E’s request on May 30, 2013 to transfer it to the Plaintiff’s account, and remitted the said money to repay the Plaintiff’s personal debt. The instant money that C transferred to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name is merely the money that C transferred to Nonparty D as a bribe, and it is not the money borrowed from the Plaintiff, and compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

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 which became the cause of the claim for the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds of objection against the claim should be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, the plaintiff did not establish the defendant's claim in the lawsuit of objection against the established payment order.