A. On May 1, 2018, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking return of unjust enrichment.

(Seoul Southern District Court 2018j. 2557). The reason for filing a claim for the payment order is that "the plaintiff has a patent and technology for the production technology of fluorous cables to the defendant in early 2017, and received 116 million won as advisory service costs from the defendant while he/she wanting to establish a foundation for the production of fluorous cables. However, the plaintiff does not own any special patent and technology, and did not perform all the work for the establishment of production foundation. Since the plaintiff by deceiving the defendant, he/she is liable to return the money."

B. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant was served with the original copy of the above payment order and the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) became final and conclusive as it was, on the grounds that the Defendant did not raise any objection thereto.

【Ground of recognition】 Any fact without dispute, Gap No. 4 and 5

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff: since the plaintiff received the service cost from the defendant and provided adequate advisory services, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted.

B. The Defendant: The Plaintiff, by deceiving the Defendant, concluded an advisory contract and did not perform the advisory duty, must refund the service cost to the Defendant.

The instant payment order is justifiable.

3. Determination

A. Since the payment order has become final and conclusive and the res judicata does not arise, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for the payment order, the failure of the claim prior to the issuance of the payment order is also a ground for objection. In this case, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim is against the defendant in the lawsuit of objection against the claim.

Therefore, the defendant, by deceiving the defendant, entered into an advisory contract.

or failure to perform the obligation under the advisory contract shall be proved.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 23, 2016.