1. The Defendant’s order against the Plaintiff is based on the authentic copy of the payment order for unjust enrichment case No. 2012 tea2864 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts: (a) around May 29, 2012, the Defendant: (b) against the Plaintiff, the Defendant implemented water pipe and electrical construction works on the Cheongju-si, considerable amount of KRW 41,00,000 for the Cheongju-si, which brought about about KRW 41 million; (c) upon receipt of an order to pay Cheongju District Court 2012 tea 2864 to the Plaintiff who has sectional ownership over the said building; and (d) upon receipt of an order to pay Cheongju-ju District Court 2012 tea 2864 to the Plaintiff; and (c) “the Plaintiff shall pay 130,000 won and interest in arrears to the Defendant”; and (d) the

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”) / [The grounds for recognition ] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a final and conclusive payment order shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. However, unlike Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act, which limits the grounds for objection against a claim against a payment order to the effect that the grounds for objection against a final and conclusive judgment have arisen after the closure of pleadings (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings, after the judgment was pronounced), does not apply to the assertion of objection against a claim against a payment order. Thus, in the payment order under the current Civil Procedure Act, the grounds for failure or invalidation of a claim arising before the issuance of the payment order may be asserted

In this sense, res judicata is not recognized in the payment order under the current Civil Procedure Act as well as the former Civil Procedure Act.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73966 Decided July 9, 2009). B.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff based on the payment order of this case was not established due to the lack of grounds. The defendant has a mechanical parking cost in the above Cheongju-si C commercial building underground parking lot.