1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ground of appeal No. 2.

B. Paragraph (1) is the same as the grounds of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as described in the following Paragraph (2), and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The part used as the dismissal is the part of the lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement by asserting the substantive reasons as to the claim indicated in the title of execution, such as the final judgment by which the obligor rendered a final judgment, etc. (Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act). Therefore, the non-determined payment order is the subject of effective enforcement title, and therefore, the non-determined payment order cannot be a valid enforcement title, and thus, a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of enforcement power cannot be brought (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da7012, Nov. 15, 2012). Accordingly, if the service of the Plaintiff on the instant payment order is unlawful as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the above payment order was not finalized as the period for raising an objection against the above payment order was not set.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.