1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea87037 is denied.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant remitted the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff to KRW 1 million on July 27, 1998, KRW 500,000 on August 22, 1998, KRW 500,000 on September 2, 1998, KRW 500,000 on September 7, 1998, KRW 100,000 on October 23, 1998, KRW 2 million on May 14, 199, and KRW 100,000 on October 27, 199.

On December 4, 2012, the Defendant received a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay 5.6 million won and 20% interest per annum to the Defendant from December 29, 2012 to the day of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court by filing an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order seeking a loan of KRW 5,600,000 as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Du87037, Dec. 4, 2012.

B. The instant payment order was finalized on January 12, 2013 as the Plaintiff did not raise an objection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 11 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that 5.6 million won transferred by the defendant to the account in the name of the plaintiff was transferred to the above account used at C as a construction deposit when the plaintiff's father C and the defendant jointly agreed to perform construction work, and that the plaintiff did not borrow 5.6 million won from the defendant.

On this issue, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff loaned KRW 5.6 million to the plaintiff upon request that the money be needed by C.

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 the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection is in accordance with the principle of the burden of proof distribution in the general civil procedure. Thus, in the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim against the final and conclusive payment order was not established in the lawsuit of objection against the final and conclusive payment order, the defendant's claim was not established.