1. On March 7, 2018, the ASEAN District Court Decision 2018Da140 decided March 7, 2018 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 7, 2018, the Daejeon District Court rendered a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) against the Plaintiff, stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 50,000,000 and 25% interest per annum from December 22, 2016 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The instant payment order was finalized on March 28, 2018.

B. The cause of the instant payment order was that “the Defendant determined and lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2016 as interest rate of KRW 10% per annum.”

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant as stated in the claim for the payment order of this case. Thus, the payment order of this case is issued and finalized as to the non-existent claim.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. On December 22, 2016, the Defendant asserted that: (a) upon the request of C, the former husband of the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (b) determined the Plaintiff as the principal obligor; and (c) determined KRW 50,000,000 as the joint and several surety and lent the Plaintiff as 10% interest per month.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a payment order for which relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive, 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 (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The burden of proving the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also 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 established in a lawsuit claiming objection against the established payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.