청구이의
1. The Defendant’s case was dated August 21, 2019 against the Plaintiff of Suwon District Court (Seoul District Court Branch 2019 tea 1163) for unjust enrichment.
1. On February 20, 2008, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff had not been paid KRW 31 million out of the total amount of KRW 60 million paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. On August 19, 2019, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order under Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch 2019 tea163. On August 21, 2019, the said court issued an order for payment (hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 31 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.”
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has expired before the defendant's above claim against the plaintiff was filed for the payment order of this case, and that compulsory execution should be denied because the plaintiff was granted immunity from the court.
B. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in a lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.
Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim had not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims facts that fall under the disability or cause of extinction of the right, such as the invalidity or extinguishment of the claim as a false declaration of prior agreement
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.). C.
According to the records of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff's above obligations against the defendant.