1. The instant lawsuit was filed on July 4, 2014 in order to provide loans to the Jungyang District Court (2014 tea 2284).

1. We examine whether the Defendant’s objection against the instant payment order dated July 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) against the repayment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) rendered on July 4, 2014 in the Namyang-si District Court of South-si, Namyang-si, a District Court of 2014Da2284, was lawful.

On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for the payment order claiming the payment of the amount as stated in the purport of the claim, and on July 4, 2014, the Jungyang District Court issued the instant payment order on July 4, 2014. The Defendant received the original copy of the instant payment order on July 10, 2014 from Cari-Ba, where the Defendant leased and operated three floors of the ground building B from the Plaintiff at Namyang-si, the Defendant received the original copy of the instant payment order on July 10, 2014; and the Defendant submitted the written objection against the instant payment order on July 22, 2014, where the said 14 days elapsed from the Plaintiff.

‘The fact that the request for the supplement of the payment order of this case was submitted to the purport that it is obvious in the record, the entry of the evidence Nos. 4 and 15, and the fact inquiry of the court of the Republic of Korea's District Court of Namyang-si, the whole purport of the pleadings can be recognized.

On July 10, 2014, D, which is the defendant's business office, received the original of the payment order of this case on July 10, 2014, and the service on the defendant was made lawfully in accordance with Articles 183(1) and 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. There is no evidence to prove that the defendant submitted the written objection against the payment order of this case within the objection period, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was unable to observe the objection period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's objection against the above subsequent completion made after the lapse of the objection period of two weeks from the date on which the original of the payment order of this case was served.

2. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is subject to the instant payment order on July 25, 2014.