1. The Defendant’s order of payment for the purchase price for goods in the Suwon District Court 2016 tea 2792 against the Plaintiff is authentic.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff subcontracted part of the contact work contracted by the dry Enterprise Co., Ltd. to the Defendant on and around May 10, 2016, and paid 4030,000 won for the goods.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10,561,650 (including value-added tax) for the total amount of goods as follows (hereinafter “the instant work statement”) from the Plaintiff, and filed an application for a payment order with the Suwon District Court for the payment order under the Nanwon District Court Support 2016 tea2792, asserting that the Defendant did not receive KRW 7,561,650 among them.

C. The above court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Defendant for the payment of KRW 7,561,650 and damages for delay from the next day of the delivery of the written application for the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection, which became final and conclusive on December 23, 2016.

C [Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the “Rp” and “work” among the instant work specifications had not been subcontracted to the Defendant, the amount of goods to be paid by the Plaintiff is KRW 5,061,500 even if the value-added tax includes 10% of the value-added tax.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 4,930,00 to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,766,50,000 to the Defendant, which was defective in the internship that the Defendant worked and supplied, thereby deducting the amount of KRW 5,766,50,00, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the goods to the Defendant was extinguished.

B. The Defendant asserted that all of the subcontracting work was performed as indicated in the work statement of this case.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation, etc. occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). This objection is raised.