1. The original order of the Defendant’s payment order for the construction cost case No. 2017 tea 168, which was issued by the Changwon District Court Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si.

1. On March 6, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment order for the first new construction of the building C in Changwon District Court Decision 2017 tea168 (hereinafter “instant construction”). The Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the Defendant on March 6, 2017, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 65,00,000 to the Defendant and its delay damages.” The said payment order was finalized on March 6, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Entry of Evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff merely entered into a contract for construction with D and did not directly enter into a contract for construction with the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff is nonexistent, and compulsory execution based on the instant payment order shall not be denied. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant construction contract was concluded with the Plaintiff and completed the instant construction work. As such, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff deducted KRW 12,000,000 from the construction cost paid to the Plaintiff, and the remaining amount of KRW 65,00,000 from the construction cost paid to the Plaintiff.

B. 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 with respect to the claim that was the cause of the claim for 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). The Plaintiff’s construction payment of the instant construction work to the Defendant on March 28, 2017 is 20.