1. The Defendant’s Cheongju District Court case’s Cheongju District Court case’s loan to the Plaintiff on November 18, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiff and Nonparty C, who is the Plaintiff’s mother, with the Cheongju District Court Decision No. 2014Hu761, Nov. 18, 2014, and the said court issued an order for payment stating that “The Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant KRW 8,00,000,000, and damages for delay and expenses incurred

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The above order was served on December 21, 2014 on the Plaintiff and became final and conclusive on January 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no fact that he borrowed money from the defendant, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount to the defendant according to the payment order of this case since the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant with the fund for operating the penta in the course of operating the penta.

3. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). In the lawsuit of demurrer against such a claim, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against the claim shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden in general civil procedure.

Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim had not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims facts that fall under the disability or cause of extinction of the right, such as the invalidity or extinguishment of the claim as a false declaration of prior agreement

Supreme Court on June 24, 2010