1. The defendant's order for payment in the Cheongju District Court case No. 2008Ra478 against the plaintiff was issued.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 11, 2005, the Defendant entered into a supply contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the contract.

B. On July 10, 2008, the Defendant filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiff and D seeking payment of KRW 15,537,912 of credit sales under the above contract with the Cheongju District Court 2008Da478, Cheongju District Court 2008. The above payment order was finalized on August 22, 2008 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection despite being served with the above payment order on August 7, 2008.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). On the other hand, D had raised an objection to the said payment order on August 1, 2008, but D rendered a favorable judgment on November 20, 2008 in the same court (2008Gaso6956), which was implemented as a lawsuit, on November 20, 208, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, substantial facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. According to the contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant under the contract of this case extinguished upon D’s repayment of the Defendant’s debt to the Defendant on August 24, 2006, and the Defendant also cancelled the right to collateral security established on the E-gun of Chungcheongbuk-gun owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”).

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be allowed.

B. The Defendant’s obligation based on the instant payment order still remains KRW 12,056,833 as the principal was paid only KRW 3,481,079 on March 5, 2010.

3. Determination

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in the general civil procedure.

Therefore, final and conclusive.