Upon the Defendant’s filing a request for a payment order for a loan with the Plaintiff as the obligor, this Court rendered a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Defendant: “The obligor shall pay KRW 2,983,973 to the obligee at the rate of 39% per annum from January 30, 2012 to the date of full payment; and “The obligor shall pay KRW 13,440 per annum from January 30, 2012 to the date of full payment.” The above payment order was served on the Plaintiff on September 28, 2012 and became final and conclusive on October 13 of the same year.

B. The grounds for requesting the instant payment order are as follows: “In borrowing KRW 3 million from the creditor on December 14, 201, Nonparty B guaranteed that the debtor jointly and severally pays the loan payment obligation to Nonparty B to Nonparty B’s creditor.”

2. Assertion and determination

A. The scope of judgment and the issue of this case’s payment order are determined and the res judicata does not take place even if the issue of this case’s payment order becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the restriction based on the time limit of res judicata does not apply to a lawsuit seeking an objection to that case. Therefore, failure or invalidation of a claim may be a ground for objection. In the hearing of such objection, the determination on the grounds for objection stated in the payment order should be

Therefore, in this case, the issue is whether the plaintiff is a joint and several surety for the loan obligations to the defendant of the non-party B, such as the reasons for the application.

B. The evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and the statement No. 2 through No. 6 alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed as alleged by the defendant. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the defendant's argument on the grounds of the above application cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.