The Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order under Paragraph (1) of the main text with C religious organization (D, identification number: E, address: Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho F 4 G, representative: H) as “debtor,” and the above payment order was served on the obligor on January 3, 2018.

B. The debtor did not raise an objection on the above payment order until 14 days have passed from the receipt of the above payment order.

C. However, on July 20, 2018, the Defendant (D, identification number: I, address: Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu J, 9th floor, representative: K) filed an objection with the purport that he/she shall be subrogated to the debtor of the above payment order.

2. The judgment of the payment order becomes final and conclusive with the lapse of the period of filing an objection unless the debtor files a lawful objection within two weeks from the date of receiving the payment order (Article 470 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, according to the records, the debtor was served with the original copy of the payment order of this case on January 3, 2018, and the debtor, instead of the debtor, filed an objection in the form of subsequent completion, but the defendant, who was not the debtor, filed an objection in the form of subsequent completion, cannot be deemed as the same party, and it is difficult to view that the defendant has the right to subrogate the debtor.

Ultimately, the instant payment order was terminated on January 18, 2018, which was 14 days after the lapse of the said fourteen days, and the said objection is unlawful as it was filed by a person without the right to object.

3. In conclusion, as to the instant lawsuit, the termination of the lawsuit is declared, and since the Defendant’s objection is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.