1. The Defendant’s enforcement against the Plaintiff is enforced based on the payment order of the damages claim against the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment order under this Court No. 2015 tea47, and this Court issued the instant payment order on February 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on February 24, 2015.

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant on January 2014 under which the Plaintiff supplied two dry seasons to the Defendant around June 2014.

The defendant asserted that there was a defect in the dry season supplied by the plaintiff and applied for the payment order of KRW 11,00,000 as damages, but there is no defect in the dry season supplied by the plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should not be allowed.

나. 피고의 주장 피고는 원고로부터 공급받은 건조기로 곶감을 건조하자 급속히 건조되는 바람에 정상적인 건조가 되지 않고 곶감이 까맣게 변색되어 상품가치가 없어진 곶감 8,000개가 생기는 등 11,000,000원의 손해를 보았다.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation arising prior to the issuance of a payment order with respect to the claim which was the cause of the claim for the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds of objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit against the claim against the finalized payment order, the defendant is responsible to prove the cause of the claim.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). B.

In this case, the defendant bears the burden of proof of the cause of damage, but the defendant's evidence submitted by the defendant is the defect of the building supplied by the plaintiff.