1. The defendant's payment order for the guaranteed debt amount case No. 2018j87 against the plaintiff was issued by Busan District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 11, 2018, the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that “the Defendant loaned KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff’s husband C on November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 50 million guaranteed obligation.” On January 16, 2018, the Defendant received a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 50 million per annum from the day following the delivery of the instant payment order to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

B. The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on January 22, 2018, and was finalized on February 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not have a direct and several surety or delegated his/her authority to C with a loan obligation to the defendant, and C does not have signed a monetary tea certificate on behalf of the plaintiff as a joint and several surety.

In other words, since there is no claim indicated on the payment order of this case, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) At the time of lease, as C operates a business in the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant demanded the wife’s joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties, which later believed that C obtained the Plaintiff’s consent or consent at the new cycle of the certificate of monetary borrowing stated as a joint and several sureties (the purport of asserting liability for expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act

2) In addition, the Plaintiff did not raise an objection despite having received the instant payment order directly, and confirmed the joint and several liability obligations against the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. The order for the payment of burden of proof does not take effect even if the order has become final and conclusive, and thus, the lawsuit of demurrer against the claim is subject to limitations based on the time limit of res judicata.