1. The defendant's execution of the purchase price case against the plaintiff of the Jeonju District Court of the Jeonju District Court of the Seoul High Court of the Republic of Korea, 2010 tea 56.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 2010, the Defendant filed an application for the payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of the repair cost and the cost of parts KRW 9,956,540 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

B. On February 1, 2010, the above court issued an order to pay the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant”) with the content that “the Plaintiff shall pay 9,956,540 won per annum from January 28, 2008 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, 6% per annum from the next day to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the payment date.” The above payment order was finalized on February 20, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, in the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection against the final payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff asserts the fact that the claim was invalid or extinguished as an unfair juristic act or due to repayment, etc., the plaintiff is liable to prove such fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). As to whether the Defendant’s claim for repair costs and the purchase price for parts against the Plaintiff was established, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the Plaintiff is below the shower owned by the Plaintiff on March 7, 2007.