1. The Defendant’s payment order issued on April 11, 2018 against the Plaintiff was based on Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Hu6364 decided April 201.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including paper numbers):

1) On November 28, 17, 17, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff’s partner C, etc. to the effect that “C shall pay 27.9% interest per annum from June 24, 2015 to the day of full payment” as to KRW 47,798,456 and KRW 35,63,926, jointly with D, and jointly with D, and KRW 35,63,926. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. (2) The Defendant requested a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s wage claim, contract recruitment fee, and KRW 53,032,114, among the claims for contract recruitment fee, and received a decision from the Daejeon District Court on March 26, 2018.”

On March 29, 2018, the above decision was served on the Plaintiff, a garnishee.

3) The defendant is the payment order stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the above collection order against the plaintiff, seeking the payment of the collection money according to the above collection order (hereinafter "the payment order of this case").

On April 11, 2018, the Daejeon District Court ordered the Defendant to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the delivery date of a copy of the payment order to the day of full payment. The original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff around that time. (4) At the time of the instant payment order, the Plaintiff operated the restaurant, but C did not work at the restaurant, and served as an employee of the construction company.

B. 1) Determination 1) Since a payment order became final and conclusive and the res judicata effect does not take place, a lawsuit seeking an objection to that order does not apply to the restriction based on the time limit of res judicata (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act, and the lawsuit seeking the objection to that claim is subject to deliberation.