The defendant's order of payment is based on the order of payment on April 30, 2015, 2015.

1. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 2,650,000, even if he received a partial management in the part management office of the defendant's operation, and that the defendant filed an application for the payment order against the plaintiff as Eul-gu District Court 2015 tea1482. On April 30, 2015, the above court issued the payment order (hereinafter "the payment order in this case") stating that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and until the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"). The payment order in this case was finalized on June 27, 2015.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the claim is that the Plaintiff did not use the part management room of the Defendant’s operation.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was subject to management in the part management office in charge of the defendant's operation in an amount equivalent to KRW 2,650,000, and that the plaintiff's referral made a promise to settle the above debt instead after the payment order in this case became final and conclusive.

B. 1) In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection ought to be in compliance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in the general civil procedure. Therefore, in a case where the Plaintiff claims that the claim for the payment order was not established in the lawsuit of objection against the final and conclusive payment order, the Defendant is liable to prove the grounds for the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010).