1. On April 9, 2011, the defendant's Sung-nam Branch of Suwon District Court for the defendant's plaintiff was about the case 2018 tea 403.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2018, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff with the Sungwon District Court 2018 tea403 (Seoul District Court 2018Da403) for the payment of the construction cost, etc.

The cause of the claim in the written application for payment order is that “the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant on April 28, 2015 with the construction cost of KRW 41,125,000 using the culf season, but the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost despite the completion of the construction work by the Defendant. In addition, as the Plaintiff acquired KRW 3 million from the Defendant on September 6, 2014, he/she sought payment of the unpaid construction cost and the amount obtained by deceptioning KRW 40,625,00 and damages for delay.”

B. On April 9, 2018, the Suwon District Court rendered a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 40,625,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from December 19, 2015 to the service date of the original copy of the payment order, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order was finalized on May 31, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] entry of Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. Although the payment order of the relevant legal doctrine became final and conclusive and the res judicata does not take place, the restriction pursuant to the time limitation of res judicata does not apply to a lawsuit seeking an objection to such claim (Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). Therefore, in the litigation hearing of the objection to the claim, the determination of all the claims stated in the payment order should be made on the grounds of the claim.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73480, Feb. 22, 2002)

Judgment

The plaintiff asserts that the contract was not entered into by the defendant through the application for the payment order of this case, and that the plaintiff paid all the construction cost to the defendant, and is disputing the cause of the claim under the payment order of this case.

Therefore, in light of the above relevant legal principles, the defendant of this case.