1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 63,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 1, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant’s account of KRW 5 million on October 8, 2008, KRW 10 million on October 9, 2008, KRW 3 million on October 14, 2008, KRW 5 million on October 17, 2008, KRW 5 million on October 27, 2008, KRW 5 million on October 27, 2008, KRW 25 million on October 28, 2008, and KRW 5 million on October 29, 2008, KRW 5 million on October 30, 2008, KRW 63 million on October 30, 2008, and KRW 63 million (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for the payment order claiming the payment of the above KRW 63 million to the Daegu District Court Port Branch Branch (2017 tea606) (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The above court issued a payment order on April 24, 2017 and served the original copy of the above payment order on April 28, 2017 as the defendant's domicile, and as the building C and 102, which were served on April 28, 2017 as the defendant's domicile, and the person served on the present status of service is stated as "Dong Persons D."

C. On May 31, 2017, the Defendant filed an objection against the payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In principle, whether the defendant's objection is lawful or not shall be served at the "place of service, such as the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office, etc., of the person to receive the service under Article 183 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act", and the "person who can receive the supplementary service under Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act" refers to a person who belongs to the same household as the person to receive the service and lives together.

(See Supreme Court Order 200Ma5732 Decided October 28, 200, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by the records of this case are as follows. At the time of service of the payment order of this case, the Defendant’s resident registration address is “North-Gu E and 27 at port and port,” and there is no evidence to regard the Defendant’s resident registration address as the “North-Gu C building at port and 102” as the “service place” under Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and D does not have any evidence to recognize that it belongs to the same household as the Defendant under Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.