1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of basic recognition;

A. On August 8, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a cash custody certificate (No. B. 1; hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”) to the effect that the Defendant will pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant each month.

B. Since then, based on the cash custody certificate of this case, the Defendant filed an application for the instant payment order against the Plaintiff for KRW 30 million and delay damages therefor. On March 16, 2015, the instant payment order became final and conclusive on March 31, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff was served with the original copy of the instant payment order on March 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the payment order of this case was not lawfully served on the plaintiff.

However, according to the plaintiff's above assertion, since the payment order of this case cannot become an effective executive title due to the uncertain state, it cannot be brought an objection to the claim seeking the exclusion of executive force. It is difficult to view that the plaintiff actively made an assertion corresponding to the above causes of retirement.

A. When applying for the instant payment order, the Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s workplace in which the Plaintiff was unable to receive the payment order directly, as the Plaintiff’s address. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against the Plaintiff’s failure to know that the instant payment order was served.

Therefore, since the payment order of this case is unlawful and the service is not confirmed until now, compulsory execution based on it should not be allowed.

B. When applying for the instant payment order, the Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s workplace with which the Plaintiff was unable to receive the payment order directly as the Plaintiff’s address. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not raise an objection on the grounds that he was unaware of the delivery order of the instant payment order.