1. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for nullification of the payment order added at the trial is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is filed.

1. Judgment on the invalidity confirmation of payment order

A. The Plaintiff’s argument that the payment order in the Seoul Northern District Court 2015 tea43751 case does not comply with the standard form of the payment order publicly announced by the Supreme Court, and thus, the payment order was issued without any separate correction order, and thus, the above payment order is invalid in violation of the judicial power and due process of law.

B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of right, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant for removal of the plaintiff's rights or legal status (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 1997). Meanwhile, in the case of a finalized payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order with respect to the claim which is the cause of the claim for the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit for objection against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). As long as the defendant files a lawsuit for objection against a claim for non-performance of compulsory execution based on the payment order, this part of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the payment order cannot be deemed as a valid and appropriate means, and thus, it is dismissed as unlawful and dismissed.

2. Determination as to the part of the objection raised

A. The reasons why the court of this case is to use in this case are as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff, emphasizing or adding at the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. On October 21, 2014, the notice of assignment of claims issued by the Defendant around October 21, 2014 was sent to the Plaintiff’s former domicile.