1. The Defendant’s loan case against the Plaintiff at the Incheon District Court Branch Kimpo-si, 2013j 1453.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 6, 2013, the Defendant received a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the Plaintiff on August 6, 2013, stating that “The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for the debt of KRW 300 million against the Defendant of the Incheon District Court Decision 2013j1531, stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the above KRW 300 million and its delay damages.” On August 16, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for payment order with the Defendant that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant for delay damages and its delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment.”

B. On August 23, 2013, the instant payment order was served as “in e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the argument is that the plaintiff has not jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of KRW 300 million to the defendant of C, and since the plaintiff failed to legally receive the original copy of the above payment order, compulsory execution based on the above payment order shall be dismissed.

B. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order with respect to the claim that was the cause of the claim for the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds of objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in the 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.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). Some of the testimonys made by the witness F of the Slives witness F alone is the Plaintiff’s 300 million won against the Defendant.