1. The defendant's original order for payment of the union members contributions case No. 2019.304 against the plaintiff was based on the original order for payment against the plaintiff.

A payment order does not take place even if it becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the restriction is not applied to a claim objection lawsuit based on the time limit of res judicata (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act). Therefore, in a lawsuit of objection, in the hearing of such claim objection, the court may deliberate and decide on all the claims indicated in the payment order. In such cases, the burden of proof for the existence or establishment of the claim shall be borne by the creditor, i.e., the defendant in the lawsuit of objection.

At the time of joining a cooperative, the defendant sought the refund of the contribution from the cooperative on the ground of the occurrence of the reasons stipulated in the certificate of safeness issued by the plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is not sufficient to recognize the occurrence of each reason for refund (unauthorized to establish the cooperative, failure to secure the business site) stipulated in the certificate of safeness, and there is no other

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order stated in the defendant's claim against the plaintiff should not be permitted. Since the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.