1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit to be served with the payment order of this case.

Furthermore, a person who is responsible for the performance of the obligation ordered to pay in the instant payment order is not a plaintiff, but a law firm C, and the plaintiff does not lose the benefit of the deadline for the obligation ordered to pay in the instant payment order, and the amount requested in the instant payment order itself is excessive.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a payment order for which relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in general civil procedure.

Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim and where the plaintiff asserts that the cause of the claim was extinguished by repayment, etc., the plaintiff is liable to prove the fact.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). B.

Examining the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no lack of delivery of the instant payment order, first of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant payment order was served with the Plaintiff’s resident registration address, but the instant payment order was served to the Plaintiff by means of service due to the Plaintiff’s impossibility of being served with the Plaintiff’s resident registration address. The instant payment order was served to the Plaintiff by lawful service by public notice. Thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation that there was no lack of delivery of the instant payment order.