The defendant's remainder of construction cost is about the defendant's Daejeon District Court's Daejeon District Court's 2020 tea 427 case.

Basic Facts

On August 10, 2020, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on August 10, 2020 against the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court for the payment order for the remainder of construction cost No. 2020 tea 427, the Plaintiff received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court on August 12, 2020, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the day following the month when the original copy of the instant payment order was sent to the day when the payment is repaid.” The instant payment order was finalized on September 3, 2020.

[Ground for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings are asserted by the plaintiff, the defendant entered into a contract between the plaintiff's father C, not the plaintiff's father C, to set up ground water pipes on the land owned by the plaintiff, and performed an installation work under the above contract. Thus, the plaintiff did not have a duty to pay the construction price

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order, which serves as the cause of a claim for the obligation to pay the balance of construction price under the above contract against the Defendant, should be denied.

Judgment

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the reason why the payment order was not established or invalidated before the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the reason for objection as to the claim in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in the general civil procedure.

Therefore, in a case where the Plaintiff asserts that the claim was not established in a lawsuit seeking objection against the final payment order, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the cause of the claim to the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). B. In light of the above legal principles, the issue of this case and the statement of evidence No. 2, supra, are examined and examined.