1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. 1) Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion of the objection of this case is lawful

(2) The Seoul Central District Court order No. 2018Da6087 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”) is issued by filing an application for a payment order seeking the payment of damages for delay and the payment order.

(1) The Defendant’s written objection (hereinafter referred to as “instant written objection”) was issued.

A) The Defendant’s in-house director C indicated the Defendant’s in-house director as the representative director, and the Defendant’s in-house director’s seal affixed to the representative director, which is not the seal of in-house director, the instant objection is unlawful. Therefore, the Defendant cannot dispute the instant payment order, which is finalized, and the instant lawsuit shall not be terminated. 2) In full view of the overall purport of the oral argument in the statement of evidence No. 6, the instant written objection contains the Defendant’s in-house director C not the “in-house director C,” but the Defendant’s in-house director C, which is not the “in-house director C,” and the fact that the seal affixed to the representative director who

However, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading evidence No. 7, there was an internal director C with the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) who was the representative director of the defendant, but the deceased died on January 31, 2018, and the registration of cancellation of the representative director was completed on March 14, 2018, and C was recognized to have been the only internal director of the defendant as of May 10, 2018, which was the date when the written objection of this case was completed. Thus, as long as C having the representative authority as the defendant’s internal director files the objection of this case as the exercise of its representative authority, it was erroneous in the internal director as the representative director.

It is difficult to deem the instant objection unlawful solely on the ground that the seal of the representative director, not the seal of the internal director, was affixed.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(b).