A. On November 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a collection order based on the Defendant’s damage claim against C and C with the debtor as the Plaintiff, etc. on November 27, 2017, under the Youngcheon District Court’s Youngcheon District Court’s Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu Branch 2018TTTT394, Mar. 8, 2018, for the claim against C, such as the insurance money and the refund for termination against the Plaintiff.

On April 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 4.5 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on April 2, 2018.

B. The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on April 5, 2018, and was finalized on April 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The payment order for which judgment became final and conclusive has no res judicata effect and the obligor can file a lawsuit of objection on the grounds before the payment order becomes final and conclusive such as the absence of a claim (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act). If the obligor in the payment order files a lawsuit of objection by asserting the absence of a claim, the obligee must prove the existence of the claim in accordance with the general principle of burden of proof.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, 4 of the Plaintiff’s six insurance contracts related to C had already been terminated before the seizure and collection order of each of the above claims, and there was no insurance money or termination refund payable by the Plaintiff as the termination refund was paid, and there was no insurance money payable by the Plaintiff as the remaining two cases are invalidated or there was no cause for payment of insurance money, and the contractor did not have any refund for termination paid by C as D.

Considering these circumstances, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff had the insurance money and the refund money for termination to C.