A. On September 8, 2015, the Defendant asserted that he/she acquired the claim against the Plaintiff from D Co., Ltd. (formerly: Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “D Bank”), and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the acquisition amount under Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Hu57575, Sept. 15, 2015, the Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the debtor shall pay to the creditor 11,002,837 won and KRW 2,251,527 per annum from the day following the date of service of the original copy of the payment order to the day of full payment.”

B. The instant payment order was finalized on October 7, 2015 as the Plaintiff did not raise an objection.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff, which was taken over from the D bank on July 23, 201, was taken over by the Plaintiff at the expiration of 13 years from October 30, 201, and the extinctive prescription has run from the date of redemption of the loan, and as such, a compulsory execution based on the instant payment order, which was subsequently filed and finalized, is not permissible. (2) In the case of a payment order for which judgment became final and conclusive, as to the claim that was the cause of the claim of the payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidity, etc. arising before the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection ought to be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection against the established payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). A.