1. The instant lawsuit was filed on October 15, 2015, the payment order issued on October 15, 2015 in the instant case for the purchase of goods by the court.

1. We examine whether the Defendant’s objection to the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) dated October 15, 2015 against the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) issued on October 15, 2015 in this Court as to whether the objection to the subsequent completion is lawful.

On October 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order claiming the same amount as the purport of the claim, and this court issued the instant payment order on October 15, 2015, and the Defendant submitted a written application for a subsequent completion of the instant payment order on November 17, 2015 to the effect that “C” (hereinafter “instant place of business”) had its business registered under the trade name “C,” the Defendant’s office clerk or employee, received the original copy of the instant payment order at the instant place of business on November 17, 2015, and the Defendant did not receive the original copy of the instant payment order on May 11, 2016.

On November 17, 2015, D, who is an office or employee of the defendant, received the original copy of the instant payment order on November 17, 2015 at the instant workplace, which is the defendant's business office or office, the service against the defendant was lawfully conducted pursuant to Articles 183(1) and 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant submitted the written objection against the instant payment order within the objection period, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant could not have complied with the objection period due to any cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the following circumstances acknowledged in full view of Eul's description, the fact inquiry results with the head of Busan police station and the purport of the argument of this court, namely, the plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction against the real estate owned by the defendant to this court on April 5, 2016, and the defendant applied for the original copy of the decision to commence the compulsory auction on April 18, 2016.