청구이의
1. It is due to the executory payment order of the goods cost case No. 2013j4077 of the Incheon District Court.
1. On May 4, 201, the Defendant received a decision of the payment order stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original payment order to the day of complete payment, for KRW 450,000 among KRW 64,50 and the above money, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day of the delivery of the original payment order to the day of complete payment,” on the ground that the Plaintiff purchased 1 set of cosmetics from U.S. Co., Ltd. at KRW 480,000.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole argument
2. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order with respect to the claim which became the cause of the claim of the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds of objection in the lawsuit of objection 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.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s agreement to purchase 1 set forth in 480,000 won of cosmetics from the U.S. Co., Ltd., as alleged by the Defendant, is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to purchase 1 set forth in 1 set forth in 30,000 won of 480,000 won of 1 set forth in 30,000, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the claim for the payment of goods claimed by the Defendant.
Therefore, since there is no claim against the defendant for the price of goods against the plaintiff, the Incheon District Court shall support the Incheon District Court on the premise that the above claim for the price of goods exists.