1. The defendant's order for payment of loans against the plaintiff is based on the original copy of the Daejeon District Court's 2009 tea3701.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application with Daejeon District Court for a payment order claiming the return of the loan against the Plaintiff as the Daejeon District Court 2009 tea3701. On April 3, 2009, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay 700,000 won per annum from April 1, 1999 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 5% per annum from the next day to the full payment date to the date of the original copy of the instant payment order.”

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on June 10, 2009, and was finalized on June 25, 2009.

C. On March 21, 2018, the Defendant received a seizure order for the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff as the Daejeon District Court 2018No953 upon the instant payment order.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted because he did not borrow money from the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the payment order of this case which ordered the return of the loan is justified since he lent 7 million won to the plaintiff around November 1998 as of March 30, 199 as the repayment deadline was set and lent to the plaintiff around March 30, 199.

A payment order does not take place even if it becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the restriction is not applied to a claim objection lawsuit based on the time limit of res judicata. Thus, in a lawsuit of objection, in the trial of the lawsuit of objection, the existence or establishment of the claim may be deliberated and determined as to all the claims indicated in the payment order. In this case, the burden of proof on the existence or establishment of the claim is against the defendant in the lawsuit of objection to the claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant lent the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, as well as the health class, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion