1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was issued on December 30, 2013 by the Jeonju District Court Order No. 2013 tea8017.

1. On December 30, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Jeonju District Court for payment order on the mid-term rental fee with the Jeonju District Court 2013 tea8017 for the construction of the Plaintiff and the limited liability company. On December 30, 2013, the said court rendered a payment order with the purport that “The construction of the Plaintiff and the limited liability company shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 27,50,000 and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum per annum from the day after the date of delivery of the payment order to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on January 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 5 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The parties’ assertion, mistake of judgment, and payment order are final and conclusive, and the res judicata does not take place, and thus, the lawsuit of demurrer pursuant to the time limit of res judicata does not apply to the lawsuit of demurrer. Therefore, the failure or invalidation of the claim becomes a ground for objection, and in the hearing of objection to the claim, the determination of the grounds for objection as stated in the payment order may be made as well. In this case, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim shall be borne by the creditor, namely, the defendant in the lawsuit of objection to the claim.

I would like to say.

In the case of this case, the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the cause of the defendant's request for payment order, so the defendant should prove the existence or establishment of the claim.

The defendant asserts that the defendant is jointly liable for the payment of the above mid-term rental fee, since the plaintiff and the limited liability company entered into a subcontract with the plaintiff and the limited liability company, and the plaintiff and the limited liability company put the scopher to the scopher and worked at the site of "B flood damage restoration" over a total of 25 times from November 12, 2012 to March 9, 2013, but did not receive KRW 27,50,000.

Therefore, on June 28, 2012, the plaintiff was awarded a contract for the "B flood restoration work" from the Dollan-gun of Jeollabuk-do for the part of the reinforced concrete construction and stone construction.