A. On September 28, 2012, the Defendant agreed against the Plaintiff on December 21, 2003, “The Defendant sold KRW 700,000,000 for basic five Francia’s goods” and agreed to receive the remainder amount in installments from January 30, 2004 to 69,500 won each month, with the payment of KRW 100,000 for two or more installments, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 for two or more installments and lost the benefit of June 14, 2004, the Defendant demanded payment of KRW 595,000 for unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated from June 14, 2004 to 105, the Defendant demanded payment of the remainder amount of KRW 100,000 for five or more installments, 105,000 for five or more installments damages for delay from June 14, 2004 to 207.

B. On October 5, 2012, the above court accepted the above application and issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order was finalized on November 20, 2012.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since a payment order has no res judicata effect even if it becomes final and conclusive, the obligor on the payment order can assert the absence or invalidity of the claim on the grounds prior to the issuance of the payment order. As such, where the obligor files a lawsuit with the obligee claiming the absence of the claim on the payment order, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim exists in the obligee who applied for the payment order, and the burden of proving the obstacle or extinction of the right is the obligor.

In this case, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not purchase cosmetics from the defendant, so the defendant must prove the existence or establishment of the product price claim.