1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Order No. 2013 tea79370.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 14, 2008, the Plaintiff received KRW 9.7 million from the Defendant, around October 2008, and around 10 million. On November 25, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared and issued to the Defendant a certificate of borrowing stating that “The said amount would be borrowed for six months as of November 25, 2008 as to the interest of the said amount” (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowing of this case”).

B. Since then, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 20 million with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 tea79370,000,000, which was that the Defendant supplied electricity and special lighting to the Plaintiff for several years and the unpaid amount of KRW 20 million remains.

On December 4, 2013, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay the amount of KRW 20 million and 20% interest per annum from December 12, 2013 to the date of full payment.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant payment order”). C.

The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on December 11, 2013, and was finalized on December 27, 2013 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an objection.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, and non-satisfy

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Although a payment order has become final and conclusive and the res judicata does not take place, the restriction is not applied to a lawsuit of demurrer against such claim based on the time limit of res judicata (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act). In a lawsuit of demurrer, the determination of the grounds for all claims indicated in the payment order may be made in the hearing of the claim. In such a case, the burden of proof for the existence or establishment of the claim is against the defendant in the lawsuit of demurrer against the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73966 Decided July 9, 2009, etc.). B.

As to the instant case, the goods supply contract for special lighting between the Defendant and the Plaintiff shall be acknowledged differently as to the facts that the goods supply contract for special lighting has been implied or explicitly concluded.