1. The order for payment issued by the Defendant to the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court, July 16, 2008, No. 2008Da4334) against the Plaintiff is issued.

1. On October 25, 1993, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of goods under the court No. 2008 tea434, that the Plaintiff did not pay the price for the goods even after the Plaintiff purchased visibility from the Defendant. On July 16, 2008, the court ordered the Defendant to pay the payment order for KRW 727,00 and KRW 166,00,00 per annum from the day following the delivery of the original payment order to the day of full payment. The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff purchased visibility from the defendant on October 25, 1993, the compulsory execution against the plaintiff on the payment order should not be permitted.

The plaintiff is liable to prove the cause of the claim in a lawsuit of demurrer, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim has not been established.

That is, (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). The defendant did not make specific arguments and prove the cause of the claim for the price of goods.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above payment order against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.