1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and C are married couple, and D are children of the plaintiff and C.

The defendant is the female life of C.

B. On November 27, 2008, the Defendant remitted 30 million won to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name, and 30 million won to D’s account on January 28, 2009.

C. The Defendant filed a claim with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming a loan of KRW 60 million and damages for delay against the Plaintiff, as the Seocho-si District Court Decision 2015 tea3243, Namyang-si, Namyang District Court, and the said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on May 28, 2015, and became final and conclusive as is.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The party’s assertion (1) is that C, who is the Plaintiff’s bad credit holder, needs business funds, and only borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant and used the Plaintiff’s name account and D’s name. Since the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendant, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

(2) The Plaintiff sought the Defendant together with the Defendant C, and borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant, and the Defendant wired KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff’s account.

After that, the plaintiff found the defendant with C, and additionally borrowed KRW 30 million from the defendant, and at the request of the plaintiff, the defendant transferred KRW 30 million to the account in the name of D, his father, his father, and at the request of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the party who borrowed 60 million won from the defendant is not C but the plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit for objection against a claim for a payment order for which judgment has become final and conclusive, not only the grounds for extinguishment of the claim after the issuance of the payment order, but also the failure or invalidation of the claim before the issuance of the payment order, etc., but also the grounds for objection. In this case, the burden of proof for the existence or establishment of the claim shall be deemed to be the defendant in the lawsuit for objection against the claim.

Supreme Court Order 9 July 2009