1. The defendant's payment order for the loan case against the plaintiff is issued by the Daejeon District Court of Sejong Special Self-Governing City court 2013 tea 464.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 13, 2013, the Defendant issued a payment order against the Plaintiff and C with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Ra464, stating that “The Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 60,000,000 per annum from April 1, 201 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order was finalized at that time.

B. The Plaintiff is the mother of C.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it goes against the res judicata of the payment order of this case and thus should be dismissed.

However, unlike Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act provides that Article 44(2) of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to the assertion of objection against a claim against a payment order, as to the assertion of objection against a payment order, since Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the grounds for objection against a claim against a payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against a payment order, such as failure or invalidation of a claim arising prior to the issuance of a payment order, and in this sense, res judicata effect shall not be acknowledged on a payment order under the Civil Procedure Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73966, Jul. 9, 2009). Therefore, the Defendant’s principal safety defense based on the premise that res judicata is recognized on the payment order is groundless.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties 1, around September 9, 2008, C himself/herself becomes a bad credit holder.