A. On January 28, 2006, the defendant filed an application with Busan District Court for a payment order of KRW 3,665,418 against the plaintiff and KRW 3,220,000 from among them. The above payment order was issued on January 31, 2006 and was issued on January 31, 2006.

2. 21. Finality was established

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”), which became final and conclusive, B.

In a written application for the above payment order, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff on June 16, 2005 after the Defendant acquired the principal amount of KRW 3,220,000 and its delayed damages claim against the Industrial Bank of Korea under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 1, and the ground for appeal

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s credit loan loan obligation that ordered the Plaintiff to perform in the payment order of this case (hereinafter “the instant card loan obligation”) had already expired five years after the lapse of commercial extinctive prescription. The Plaintiff did not receive the notification of the assignment of credit that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff on June 16, 2005. Thus, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant transferred his claim against the Plaintiff from the Industrial Bank of Korea under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and that upon delegation by the Industrial Bank of Korea, notified the Plaintiff of the transfer by content-certified mail. The above notification should be deemed to have reached the Plaintiff around

3. Determination

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in general civil procedure.