1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the payment order dated December 29, 2009 (2009 tea 1767) against the Defendant.

1. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order of KRW 1,784,640 against the Plaintiff at this court, and the Defendant filed an application for the payment order of KRW 1,784,640 as well as KRW 858,00 as to KRW 1,78,640 from the day following the date of service of the payment order to the day of full payment.

On December 29, 2009, this Court Decision 2009Hu1767 dated December 29, 2009, which accepted the Defendant’s request for payment order, served on the Plaintiff on January 6, 2010, and the Plaintiff did not raise an objection within two weeks, which became final and conclusive on January 21, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). 2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff purchased water purifiers from the Han Daily World, and the Plaintiff did not have a claim for the price of goods against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be allowed.

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 objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to the claim shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection against the established payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). Since there is no evidence to prove that Han Daily sold water purifiers to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s obligation to take over money against the Defendant on the premise that Han Daily had a claim for the purchase price of goods against the Plaintiff.