1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff on November 18, 2013 based on the payment order No. 2013 tea 10146 dated November 18, 2013 is 20.

1. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of goods between the Jeonju District Court Decision 2013 tea10146, Jan. 30, 2012 to Oct. 31, 2013. On November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an order to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 25,871,537 and the amount of the Plaintiff’s payment order from Nov. 1, 2013 to Nov. 1, 2013 to the delivery date of the payment order, 6% per annum, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's cause of claim and judgment on the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s purchase price of goods from January 30, 2012 to October 31, 2013, which is the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, is KRW 19,179,194 as well as KRW 19,179,194 as well as the Plaintiff’s payment of the said money to the person authorized to receive the purchase price of goods or to the quasi-Possessor of the claim for the purchase price of goods. Therefore, compulsory execution under the instant payment

B. The error of judgment and the payment order are final and conclusive and the res judicata does not take place, and thus, the restriction pursuant to the time limit of res judicata does not apply to a lawsuit seeking an objection to the claim. Therefore, the failure or invalidation of the claim becomes a ground for objection, and in the hearing of the objection to the claim, the determination of the grounds for objection stated in the payment order may also be made on the payment order. In this case, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim shall be borne by the obligee, i.e.

I would like to say.

Therefore, according to each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 20 (including the provisional number), the fact that the defendant supplied the plaintiff with the goods equivalent to the total amount of KRW 20,964,106 during the period from January 30, 2012 to October 31, 2013 can be acknowledged, but the defendant agreed to pay damages for delay of 20% per annum when the payment of goods is delayed.