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 the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection is in accordance with the principle of the burden of proof distribution in the general civil procedure. Therefore, in the lawsuit of objection against the final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim was not constituted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the grounds for the claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). B.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 and this court's significant facts, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff for a loan of KRW 8 million and delay damages for the reason that the plaintiff prepared a cash custody certificate (hereinafter "the cash custody certificate of this case") as of May 26, 2004. The above court issued the payment order pursuant to the above application for the above payment order (hereinafter "the payment order of this case") on January 13, 2012. The payment order of this case can be acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was sent to the plaintiff on January 25, 2012 and confirmed at that time.

C. In addition to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s personal information, which is the cash custodian of the instant cash custody certificate, appears to have been prepared by C, i.e., the Plaintiff’s personal information, which is the cash custodian of the instant cash custody certificate, appears to have been issued a cash custody certificate from C or E, rather than the Plaintiff, and D does not confirm whether it directly prepares the instant cash custody certificate or delegated the authority to prepare the instant cash custody certificate to C at the time of issuance of the instant cash custody certificate.