1. The instant lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2016, the payment order of which was issued on March 21, 2016, for loans in this Court 2016 tea2440.

1. As to the legitimacy of the Defendant’s objection to the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) dated March 21, 2016 in the instant court’s loan case 2016 tea2440, as to whether the objection to the subsequent completion is lawful

On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant for the payment of the same amount as the purport of the claim. This court issued the instant payment order on March 21, 2016. The original copy of the instant payment order was sent as “C, 311 Dong 1502, Ginhae, Ginhae, 311 Dong 1502,” which is the Defendant’s domicile, and D, a person living together with the Defendant, received the original copy of the instant payment order on March 25, 2016. The Defendant received the original copy of the instant payment order on April 12, 2016, which was 14 days after the Defendant’s mother’s registration, to the effect that “I will raise an objection late due to personal contact with the Defendant upon the receipt of the Defendant’s mother’s registration.” It is obvious in the record that the Defendant

On March 25, 2016, D, a person living together with the defendant, received the original of the instant payment order on March 25, 2016 at the defendant's domicile, and the service on the defendant was lawfully conducted pursuant to Articles 183(1) and 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. There is no evidence to prove that the defendant submitted the written objection against the instant payment order within the period for filing the objection, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant was unable to observe the period for filing the objection due to any cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's objection to the instant payment order made after the lapse of two weeks from the date on which the original of the instant payment order was served is unlawful

2. If so, the instant lawsuit was concluded upon the conclusion of April 11, 2016, and the Defendant’s objection to the instant payment order as of April 12, 2016 against the Defendant’s above payment order is unlawful and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.