2. 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 a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act), and the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in a lawsuit of objection to such a claim shall 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). B.

Based on the above legal principles, the defendant's claim for the price of goods is recognized for the portion exceeding 681,353 won recognized by the plaintiff.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including the number of branch numbers), the plaintiff is a company engaged in the comprehensive automobile maintenance business, etc., and the defendant is engaged in the automobile parts sales business under the trade name of "C", and upon the defendant's application for a payment order claiming 11,063,030 won against the plaintiff during the period from 2015 to December 31, 2018, the payment order of this case was issued on January 31, 2019 (the defendant argued that the defendant's claim that the amount limited to the amount of money paid from the insurance company of the above money was 6,851,657 won). The defendant's claim that the sales certificate of the parts, such as the details of the supply of the defendant's claim, was prepared several times in the name of the defendant.

However, the following circumstances are revealed by taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 5 and 12 and the purport of the whole pleadings.