1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2013, the Defendant subscribed to the previous accounts [12,00 won per month, 760,000 won, 9240,000 won (27 December 27, 2014, hereinafter referred to as the “instant number accounts”)] among the number maps in which the Plaintiff is a fraternity (one time a month, and 12 times per month, paid to the Defendant, and paid all the previous accounts to the Plaintiff at 12 times thereafter.

B. However, on December 27, 2014, the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant a bonus, and on January 5, 2015, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 9.24,000 won of the fraternity and delayed payment thereof (in addition, at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of full payment) and the expenses for demand procedure. The said payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued and served on the Plaintiff, and the said payment order became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff did not raise any objection within two weeks.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1, 3 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion also joined the old account No. 12 at the end of the old account [1,60,000 won in monthly deposit, 10,000 won in monthly deposit (2,00,000 won in December, 2013)] and the old account No. 7 (9,10,000 won in monthly deposit), and did not pay to the defendant at all beginning four times from the old account No. 1 and 7.

Accordingly, around January 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that the Defendant would set off the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the payment of the said unpaid amount against the Defendant on an equal amount with the Defendant’s claim for the payment order of this case. As such, the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the former amount against the Plaintiff was extinguished within the scope of the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the former amount under 12.

Therefore, the enforcement of the instant payment order should be excluded.

B. Defendant’s assertion