1. The Defendant’s payment order issued on April 1, 2016 against the Plaintiff was based on the Suwon District Court Decision 2016 tea656.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the “C public sewerage maintenance work” from Jindo-do, Jindo-do (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. The Defendant lent construction machinery to the construction site of this case.

C. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 7,050,000 for equipment usage fees for construction machinery leased at the instant construction site and delayed payment damages (the instant payment order was issued on April 1, 2016, and the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued on April 1, 2016, and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) subcontracted the instant construction to D, and D entered into a equipment leasing agreement with the Defendant while performing the instant construction, and used the Defendant’s equipment. Therefore, there is no fact that the Plaintiff entered into a equipment leasing agreement with the Defendant. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order ought to be denied. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant entered into a equipment leasing agreement with the Plaintiff and leased equipment to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the equipment rental fee to the Defendant, and there is no reason to deny compulsory execution based

B. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order with respect to the claim that was the cause of the claim for the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds of objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in the general civil procedure.

Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in the lawsuit of objection against the established payment order, the defendant is responsible for proving the cause of the claim.