1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court’s 2017 tea 448245 claim.

1. On October 27, 2017, the Defendant issued a payment order to the Plaintiff with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017 tea48245 to the effect that “The Plaintiff would pay the Defendant damages for delay at the rate of 34.9% per annum from November 2, 2011 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the instant payment order was finalized on November 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment payment order on the cause of claim does not take place even though res judicata has become final and conclusive, and thus, the lawsuit of demurrer against the claim does not apply to the restriction on the time limit of res judicata. Thus, in the lawsuit of demurrer against the claim, the determination of the performance recommendation decision or the payment order may be deliberated and judged on all the cause of claim stated in the payment order. In such a case, the burden of proof on the existence or establishment of the claim exists to the defendant in the lawsuit of demurrer against the claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009; 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). However, since the Defendant failed to prove the existence or establishment of the claim stated in the instant payment order, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion