1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Southern District Court Order 2016 tea 44964 dated July 7, 2016.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Since res judicata is not recognized in the payment order, in a lawsuit of objection raised for the purpose of excluding executory power against the payment order, the plaintiff can assert the failure or invalidity of the claim prior to the issuance of the payment order as a ground for objection. In such a case, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim is against the defendant, who is the other party.

B. In the instant case, the Plaintiff denies the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff under the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) by Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Hu44964 (hereinafter “the instant payment order”). As such, the Defendant, the obligee, is liable to prove his claim against the Plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the joint and several surety contract (the principal obligor B) on October 31, 2013, which was the cause of the claim for the instant payment order, was lawfully concluded by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s lawful representative, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

C. In addition, even if the above joint and several liability contract is not concluded by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawful representative, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff ratified the joint and several liability contract of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not raise an objection within the lawful objection period after receiving the payment order of this case, and the plaintiff did not dispute the non-existence of the joint and several liability obligation of this case even after the collection order of this case (Seoul Northern District Court 2016TTTTTTTTTTTT 20606).

According to the results of fact-finding on the chairman of the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission of this Court, the plaintiff is the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission.