1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the payment order for the agreed amount under the Suwon District Court Decision 2019j698 agreed amount.

1. On December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant to operate a restaurant in Vietnam, and paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 100 million to the Defendant. Even thereafter, the Defendant sought additional payment of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, or unfairly transferred the monthly rent of KRW 15,000 to the Plaintiff, which is necessary for the operation of the restaurant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant filed a payment order claiming payment of KRW 10 million (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Suwon District Court Decision 2019Da698, Suwon-si, which requested the Plaintiff to pay the proceeds from the operation of the restaurant (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order became final and conclusive around that time, and thus, the Plaintiff sought a judgment as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. Since a payment order has become final and conclusive and has no res judicata effect, the obligor on the payment order can assert the absence or invalidity of the claim on the grounds before the payment order is issued, and where the obligor claims the absence of the claim on the established payment order, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim exists on the obligee.

B. According to the instant evidence, the Plaintiff and the Defendant established a new corporation referred to as “D” on December 18, 2017, and recognized the fact that the said new corporation operated a cafeteria with the trade name “E” and intended to distribute 49% of its ordinary profits to the Defendant.

C. However, the Defendant did not present specific arguments as to the profit, etc. subject to settlement by deducting whether a new corporation is established, sales by operating a restaurant, expenses, etc., and as such, it is insufficient to specify it by evidence submitted by the parties. Therefore, the Defendant cannot recognize the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant, and compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.