1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the loan payment order in Seoul Northern District Court 2017 tea148.

1. On January 11, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff and C as Seoul Northern District Court 2017Guj148, and on February 7, 2017, the Defendant received a payment order with the purport that “The Plaintiff and C jointly and severally provide loans of KRW 10,015,670 and compensation for delay therefrom to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court. The part against the Plaintiff in the said payment order against the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties or it becomes final and conclusive as of February 28, 2017 due to the Plaintiff’s objection, according to the purport of the entry in the evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion did not borrow money from the defendant, and there is no claim for the defendant's loan against the plaintiff.

In addition, there is no fact that the plaintiff guaranteed the defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution of the instant payment order based on the premise of the existence of the loan or joint and several guarantee claim cannot be permitted.

3. 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 the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order with respect to the claim which became the cause of the claim of 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 the general civil procedure.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health care unit, D’s representative director before September 4, 2014. The Plaintiff’s representative director was the Plaintiff’s representative director from September 4, 2014 to March 18, 2017, and there is no dispute between the parties, and the aforementioned evidence, E’s evidence, and evidence and evidence No. 3 as well as the entire pleadings.