On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a payment order (Seoul Northern District Court 2014Da16527) with the Defendant seeking the payment of the acquisition amount (Seoul Northern District Court 2014Da16527) on June 19, 2014, and paid the Plaintiff the amount at the rate of 24% per annum from April 16, 2014 to the day of full payment of KRW 177,256,458 among the costs of KRW 180, 681,93 and the amount of KRW 177,256,458 among them. The Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On June 20, 2014, the above court received the original copy of the instant payment order from the above court as the Defendant’s place of delivery, and it is clear that the Defendant received the Defendant’s charges from the above court on June 27, 2014.

According to the above facts, C’s act of receiving the original copy of the instant payment order at the Defendant’s workplace on June 27, 2014 is legitimate. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the period for raising an objection against the Defendant’s above payment order is up to 24:00 on July 11, 2014, which is the second share from the date of service.

Nevertheless, the defendant raised an objection against the payment order of this case only after July 21, 2014 when the above period for raising an objection had expired. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the reason for the completion of the prosecution, i.e., the circumstance that the defendant could not observe the period of peremptory objection due to the reason for not being responsible even if the defendant acted as a result of a subsequent objection.

If so, the instant lawsuit was already concluded on July 12, 2014 after the instant payment order became final and conclusive.

In this regard, the defendant's objection on July 21, 2014 is without a legitimate reason for subsequent completion.