1. The Defendant’s order for payment is based on the order for payment issued on September 16, 2014 by the Suwon District Court for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2014, C entered into a supply contract with the Defendant for piping materials (hereinafter “instant supply contract”). Accordingly, the Defendant supplied piping materials, such as pipes, totaling KRW 17,239,84 won from April 7, 2014 to May 24, 2014, and received KRW 6,00,000 as the price for the said goods.

B. On August 27, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 11,239,844 of the remainder of the goods price as well as delayed payment damages, as the Plaintiff did not receive the remainder of the goods under the instant supply contract, around August 27, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Suwon District Court for payment order 11,239,844 of the remainder of the goods price, and the said court issued an order for payment citing the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

C. The instant payment order reached the Plaintiff at that time and became final and conclusive after the lapse of the objection period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Since C unrelated to the assertion of the parties was traded with the defendant, and the plaintiff was not supplied with piping material from the defendant, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the defendant the price of the above piping material, and compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be rejected.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that C, as the Plaintiff’s managing director, entered into the instant supply contract with the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s representative director, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the price for the above goods. ② Even if C is not an employee or employee of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff neglected or silented the Plaintiff’s trading in the Plaintiff’s managing director’s qualification, and thus, the Plaintiff should be

B. In the case of a payment order for which the burden of proof has become final and conclusive, the payment order was not established before the issuance of the payment order with respect to the claim which became the cause of the claim.