On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a payment order (hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”) stating that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day of service of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment,” and its original copy to the Defendant on October 26, 2016. On October 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order against the Defendant for payment of service costs (Sacheon District Court 2016 tea6843) with the above court. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant payment order in subrogation of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant for the purpose of securing the construction cost of the Defendant in excess of his/her obligation, interest in arrears, etc. < Amended by Act No. 163, Oct. 21, 2016>

However, after the payment order of this case was served on the defendant who is the debtor, individual litigation acts as a party to the lawsuit cannot be subrogated by the creditor's subrogation right. Thus, the subrogation claimant holds the claim against the defendant as alleged above.

Even if the debtor is the defendant, he cannot raise an objection against the payment order on behalf of the debtor.

If so, the instant lawsuit was already concluded on November 10, 2016 after the payment order of this case became final and conclusive as the Do filing period of objection.

The objection filed by the subrogation on November 9, 2016 is illegal as it is filed by a person who is not a legitimate claimant. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.