1. The Defendant’s payment order for the loans against the Plaintiff was issued by the Jyang-si District Court of South Korea, 2016 tea1740.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for payment order with the Jungyang-si District Court Decision 2016 tea1740, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant: “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million on April 13, 2009 while working for the business (C) operated by the Defendant; additionally, the Plaintiff incurred damages of KRW 36,523,00 on the pretext of cash, cash borrowed, cash borrowed, cash borrowed, studs/c, tobacco, agency article, etc.; thus, the Defendant sought a total of KRW 136,523,00,000 and damages for delay.”

B. On July 8, 2016, the above court issued a payment order to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the above KRW 136,523,00,000 and damages for delay, etc.” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order became final and conclusive as it did not raise any objection.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the main point of the plaintiff's assertion is KRW 100 million in advance (D), but all of them were paid, and the remaining amount is KRW 36,523,00,000, regardless of its name. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be allowed.

The defendant asserts that the above KRW 100 million was not repaid by the plaintiff as a money separate from the advance payment, and that the remaining KRW 36,523,00 was incurred while working at the defendant's establishment.

B. In the case of a payment order for which relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order (Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof recognized in the general civil procedure.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to raise an objection against the established payment order.