1. The Defendant’s case involving the Plaintiff at the Daejeon District Court, the Asan City Court 2019 tea 270 against the Plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment order against the Plaintiff for the unpaid cost of KRW 136,817,516 with the Daejeon District Court 2019j270, the Asan City Court 2019j270, and the delayed payment damages therefor. The above court rendered a decision to accept it on April 23, 2019, and recognized the fact that the above payment order became final and conclusive on June 17, 2019.

2. The plaintiff asserts that there is no claim against the defendant against the plaintiff based on the payment order of this case, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has a claim of KRW 42,00,000 (14-month work from October 21, 2013 to February 28, 2015), shares dividends amounting to KRW 64,817,516, and fees for the brokerage of re-sale of the plaintiff's gas station.

3. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a claim in a lawsuit of objection to a claim shall be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff asserts that he/she had not established the defendant's claim, the defendant is responsible for proving the cause of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010), and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to pay wages, stocks, dividends, and brokerage fees of the defendant as asserted by the defendant to the defendant. Furthermore, according to the evidence No. 10-2, according to the evidence No. 10-2 of the evidence No. 10, the defendant is recognized to have transferred the shares of the C Co.