1. The Defendant’s payment order for the Defendant’s claim for the cost of recycling and collection services rendered against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2014.

1. On January 16, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 22,005,000 for service payment and damages for delay. Accordingly, the Defendant filed an application for the payment order against the Plaintiff.

2. 4. The payment order was issued by this Court No. 2014 tea268, and the fact that the payment order (hereinafter “instant enforcement order”) was finalized on the 25th of the same month is not disputed between the parties or recognized by the respective statements in Gap 1 and 2-1.

2. The legitimacy of the objection to the instant claim

A. As the ground for the objection of this case, the defendant's counter-party to the contract of this case argues that the defendant's service-price claim against the plaintiff indicated in the executive title of this case does not exist any way. Thus, the defendant's service-price claim against the plaintiff is examined as to whether the defendant's service-price claim against the plaintiff occurred or not. The defendant's above service-price claim against the plaintiff cannot be used as evidence due to lack of evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of Gap 2-2, and some of the statements and witness Gap 2-1, Eul 8, 12-1-12-3 and witness Gap's testimony are likely to believe them as they are in light of witness's testimony, etc., and it is insufficient to acknowledge them only with some of the entries of Gap 3 and Eul 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Thus, the ground for objection of this case is justified.

B. Regarding this, the Defendant argues that the service contract indicated in Gap 2-2 was ratified later, or that at least the agreement relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant should be deemed to have been formed in light of various indirect facts. However, there is still a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff ratified the above service contract later, and even if the defendant was based on a few indirect facts, it is difficult to evaluate that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant established the implied history service contract.