청구이의
1. The Defendant’s payment order based on the usage fee case No. 2015 tea 1213 against the Plaintiff was based on the Changwon District Court Decision 2015Da1213.
1. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had a claim for usage fees of KRW 13,975,00 (hereinafter “instant usage fees claim”) with respect to the work of the E industrial complex located in Haan-gun, Haan-gun, the end of November, 2013, and filed an application for payment order with the Defendant on July 27, 2015 with the Defendant as the obligor. The Plaintiff did not raise an objection despite being served with the payment order decision issued on July 28, 2015 by the said court, and the said payment order was finalized on August 20, 2015 between the parties.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In the case of a payment order for which the issue of burden of proof has become final and conclusive, the reason for failure or invalidation arising prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. In this lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the reason for objection should 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 Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). B.
The obligor of the instant payment order is the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that the subject of the instant payment order with the Defendant and E Industrial Complex construction contract is F Co., Ltd., the representative director of which is the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), and thus, the liability for the payment of the instant usage fee claim is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s non-individual.
Therefore, the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff, should prove the instant royalty claim.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 14 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, are the representative director of F and G.