A. 1) Defendant B Law Firm (hereinafter “Defendant Law Firm”)

(2) The Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law registered as a member of the Defendant law firm from December 1, 2017 to August 9, 2018 with the duties, etc. of attorney-at-law as a purpose business, and the Defendant C is an attorney-at-law registered as a member of the Defendant law firm from December 1, 2017 to August 27, 2019.

B. 1) The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 40,876,670, out of the wages from May 4, 2017 to July 2018 from Defendant Law Firm, and filed an application for the payment order against the Defendants under this Court No. 2018 tea204. 2) On August 21, 2018, the said court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 4, 2018 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said original of the payment order was served on the Defendants on August 24, 2018.

3) However, as to the instant payment order, only Defendant C submitted a written objection on August 31, 2018, and accordingly, the instant payment order was submitted to the instant litigation procedure. [Grounds for recognition] The instant payment order was submitted to the instant litigation procedure. [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3 (where a serial number exists, the number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. In a case where the defendant, who judged the claim against the defendant law firm, failed to raise an objection within two weeks after receiving the original copy of the payment order, the payment order became final and conclusive and the lawsuit is terminated. In a case where the lawsuit is excessive even though the lawsuit is completed, and the trial is continued, the court shall ex officio declare the termination of the lawsuit.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da103048, Apr. 28, 2011). Moreover, even in cases where a payment order was finalized only for one of the co-defendants, the said lawsuit is both co-defendants.