1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on January 24, 2008, based on the payment order 2008 tea148 dated January 24, 2008.

1. On July 7, 2005, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff loaned the amount of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2005 with a rate of KRW 1.5% per annum and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for a loan of KRW 10 million with the Suwon District Court 2008 tea148. Accordingly, on January 24, 2008, “the obligor (referring to the Plaintiff in this case)” was issued on January 24, 2008 to the creditor (referring to the Defendant in this case) and its related amount of KRW 18% per annum from August 7, 2005 to the delivery date of the authentic copy of the payment order, and the payment order for demand procedure expenses calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”) and confirmed around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the defendant, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be denied.

On July 7, 2005, the defendant asserted that on December 31, 2005, the payment period of KRW 10 million was determined and lent to the plaintiff on December 31, 2005 by 1.5% per month.

B. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds such as failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against the claim should be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in general civil procedure.

Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection against the established payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). Accordingly, whether the Defendant lent KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff is true.