A. On July 13, 2018, the Defendant: (a) concluded a credit transaction agreement with D and the Plaintiff; and (b) applied for payment order as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2018Hu45923, Seo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul District Court”); (c) delayed payment of principal and interest until March 18, 2016, and delayed payment of principal and interest until March 18, 2016. The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of D. The Plaintiff transferred the said debt to F Co., Ltd. on May 20, 201; and (d) thereafter, the said debt was transferred before and after the transfer to the Defendant on March 18, 2016.

On July 17, 2018, the above court issued a payment order stating that “D and the Plaintiff jointly and severally pay to the Defendant 159,352,793 won and 35,411,122 won with interest rate of 15% per annum from March 19, 2016 to the date of full payment.”

This was served on the Plaintiff on July 25, 2018 and confirmed on August 9, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). On the other hand, the Defendant withdrawn the application against D when the original copy of the above payment order was not served D.

B. On March 6, 2019, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim under Daegu District Court 2019TTT No. 102784 upon the instant payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the case of one final and conclusive payment order as to the cause of claim, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the cause of claim objection shall be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in general civil procedure.

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