1. The Defendant’s payment order based on the loan payment order in Seoul Central District Court 2016 tea52841 against the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On January 23, 2007, the Plaintiff and C were divorced on February 7, 2014, and the Defendant, well known to C, deposited KRW 100,000,000 to the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff on June 12, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant loaned KRW 100,000,000 against the Plaintiff at an interest rate of 2% per month, and thereafter reduced the interest rate of KRW 1.5% per month, and applied for a payment order for the loan case No. 2016 tea52841, Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) on October 27, 2016, and became final and conclusive on November 23, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). [No dispute exists on the ground of recognition], and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s ground of claim as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence No. 2, and the ground of claim as a whole of the pleadings, is to borrow KRW 100,000 from the Defendant using the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and it does not mean that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100,000 from the Defendant.

After receiving and using the above KRW 100,000,000 from C, the Plaintiff paid all of them to C.

On June 12, 2012, the Defendant, at the Plaintiff’s request, lent KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff at the rate of 2% per month.

The plaintiff also recognized this and paid monthly interest to the defendant's husband's account.

Judgment

In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the reason for failure, invalidation, etc. 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 which became the cause of the claim of the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the cause of objection in the lawsuit of objection shall be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in the general civil

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). Defendant is the Defendant.