1. The Defendant’s order of payment order (No. 2012j 3463) against the Plaintiff is based on the original copy of the Defendant’s order of payment.

Facts of recognition

around 2010, the Defendant requested C to lend money under the name of the project fund, and transferred KRW 53,500,000 in total to the Plaintiff’s passbook under the name of Dong C, a partner of Dong C, on August 31, 2010, KRW 15,000,000 on February 9, 201, and KRW 13,500,000 on February 18, 201.

On August 28, 2012, the Defendant filed an order for payment under Paragraph 1 against the Plaintiff for the payment of the above monetary amount against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 53,500,000 with the High Government District Court, and received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court on August 28, 2012 stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 53,500,000 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment,” and the above payment order was finalized around that time.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading of the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole pleading, since the debtor of the loan claim of this case is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's type C, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case

Since a payment order issued on the market does not have res judicata effect even if it has become final and conclusive, the debtor on the payment order can assert the absence or invalidity of the claim on the grounds before the payment order is issued. As such, where the debtor claims the absence of the claim on the payment order established and files a lawsuit of objection against the claim, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim is against the defendant in the lawsuit of objection against the claim.

Therefore, in the case of this case, the defendant should assert and prove that the defendant has the loan claim of KRW 53,500,000 against the plaintiff.

The fact that the Defendant transferred the above money to the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff is as seen earlier.

However, the evidence No. 2 and the testimony of the witness C can be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings.