2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming restitution of unjust enrichment with the Southern District Court Decision 2015 tea32445, and the payment order issued on June 12, 2015 by this Court was served on the Plaintiff on June 22, 2015, and became final and conclusive on July 7, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On September 23, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 81,213, including the principal amount of KRW 744,000 and delay damages based on the instant payment order, and the expenses for demand procedure on behalf of the Defendant, based on the instant payment order. The Defendant received the request without any objection around that time.

C. After that, on May 4, 2018, when the Defendant applied for the issuance of the original copy of the instant payment order and the execution clause, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for non-performance of compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.

(Ground for recognition), entry of evidence A 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, without dispute (based on recognition)

2. The lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation in this case is permitted only when the judgment of the court of confirmation is rendered most effective and appropriate in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status and the apprehension and risk thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). In light of the aforementioned basic facts and the purport of the instant case, the ultimate purpose of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the obligation in this case is to exclude compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s property by the Defendant’s title of the payment order in this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit for objection against the Defendant in order to achieve this purpose is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status anxiety and risk.

However, the plaintiff claims the objection along with the lawsuit in this case, and therefore, on January 2018.