청구이의
1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is issued on May 9, 2014 by the Donnam-gun District Court of Gwangju District Court of the Republic of Korea (2014 tea302).
1. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant received a payment order against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant payment order”), stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and the amount calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from January 31, 2014 to the service date of the authentic copy of this payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.” The instant payment order was issued on May 21, 2014, and became final and conclusive on June 6, 2014 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 6 and the purport of the whole argument
2. In the case of a payment order for which relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive, the grounds such as failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against the claim shall also be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in the 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.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). 3. In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the claim against the Plaintiff, who ordered payment from the instant payment order, was not established. Thus, the Defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, which was the cause of the claim for the instant payment order.
The Plaintiff’s agent C, D, and May 21, 2013, based on the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and pleading No. 1, installed a boiler with which the Defendant can maintain the indoor temperature above 35 degrees at the Plaintiff’s two-way entrance, and the Plaintiff operates without more than the boiler installed by the Defendant, until January 30, 2014.