1. The defendant's case of the purchase price of goods at the Chuncheon District Court, Gangseo-si Branch Court, 2014 tea 363, which is against the plaintiff.

1. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff has a claim for the amount of KRW 4,714,140 supplied to the Plaintiff from May 4, 2014 to July 17, 2014. The Defendant filed an application for payment order under this Court Order No. 2014 tea363 on October 19, 2014 with the Plaintiff as the obligor. The Plaintiff did not raise any objection despite being served with the notice of payment order issued on October 21, 2014 by the court. The fact that the said payment order became final and conclusive on November 11, 2014 is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In the case of a payment order for which the issue of burden of proof has become final and conclusive, the reason for failure or invalidation arising prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. In this lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the reason for objection should 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 claiming objection 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). B.

1) Determination as to the existence of the above oil payment claim 1) The plaintiff asserts that the parties to the above oil supply contract with the defendant who concluded the above oil supply contract are Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff was the representative director of the plaintiff, not the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the fact that the debtor of the above oil payment claim is the plaintiff. 2) Rather, there is no evidence to support the fact that the debtor of the above oil payment claim is the plaintiff, the defendant must prove it. Rather, the following circumstances, which are recognized by the whole purport of the statement and pleading as follows: (i) the plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of C on December 17, 2013, but resigned on October 10, 2014; and (ii) the defendant was supplied on July 31, 2014 as Co., Ltd. with the total amount of 4,714,140 won.