2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff, not the debtor C of the payment order of this case, has no standing to file a lawsuit of objection against the payment order of this case.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.

(A) Although the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit, the Defendant did not consent thereto, and the Plaintiff was absent on the last day of pleading). [Additional Judgment] The Plaintiff’s objection suit of this case is deemed to have been filed in subrogation of C.

In the instant payment order (Evidence A) in accordance with the Daejeon District Court Decision 99Da221096 (hereinafter “the instant judgment”), the Defendant demanded the collection of the Plaintiff’s claim against C, a third obligor, for the seizure and collection of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against C (the Daejeon District Court official branch of the Daejeon District Court Gong2014TT903). The grounds that the Plaintiff, who subrogated C, extinguished the enforcement force of the instant payment order, are that the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant was extinguished, and this is merely a claim by the third obligor of the collection order that the enforcement obligation was extinguished.

The non-existence or extinction of an executory claim cannot be denied the repayment of an executory claim by asserting it as a defense by a third-party obligor in the lawsuit of collection in the grounds for which the executory claim would be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da34012 delivered on November 11, 1994, etc.). Ultimately, the Plaintiff brought an objection against the Defendant on the ground that the enforcement force of the instant judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 99Da221096) has been extinguished, separate from filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit of objection against the instant payment order by subrogation of C, who is a garnishee.