1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. An objection against the order of payment by the deceased B requester for the proceedings.

1. Judgment on the legitimacy of a formal objection filed by a litigation requester against a payment order

A. As the basic principles of the Civil Procedure Act requiring the rescue of the plaintiff and the defendant to file a lawsuit with the deceased party are inappropriate, and the substantial litigation relationship cannot be achieved, the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered in such a situation.

Even if the judgment is null and void, and the appeal or request for a lawsuit by the heir of the defendant who is the deceased of the judgment is unlawful.

The same applies to the case where the defendant died before a duplicate of complaint is served after the filing of the suit, and this legal principle also applies to the payment order in which the deceased person is a debtor.

In other words, the payment order has no effect where the debtor dies before the original copy is served after the application for payment order is filed with the deceased as the debtor.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da274188 Decided May 17, 2017, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da34041 Decided January 29, 2015, etc.) B.

The following facts may be recognized in fact that there is no dispute between the parties, or in each entry in the evidence of paragraphs (1) through (6) above, by integrating the purport of the whole pleadings:

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the guard management services contract concluded with B around January 1, 1999 (the Plaintiff’s access control of access roads to E Co., Ltd. in the management of B and the management of eight parcels, instead of managing the access roads to B, and the payment of KRW 10 million per month from G to March 5, 2003, the Plaintiff has been engaged in the control and management of access from March 5, 2003. The Cheongju District Court (hereinafter “Audio-Gun Court”) issued a payment order against B, seeking payment of KRW 300,000,000 of the agreed amount, and damages for delay thereof, shall be referred to as “Audio-Gun Court”).

(1) The payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was filed on February 14, 2007 as 2007 tea106, and as of February 14, 2007

(b).