1. The Defendant’s order for the payment of the instant case, such as the purchase price for the vehicle 2013 tea 311, for the Defendant’s Goyang Branch for the Plaintiff.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. The Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract on January 2009, with respect to the Nam-gu Incheon metropolitan apartment D,” and filed an application against the Plaintiff for payment order seeking payment of KRW 92,500,000,000, which was not paid out of the sales price, and KRW 17,798,542, and late payment charge, ② interest on loans subrogated by the Plaintiff, KRW 11,374,581, and KRW 15,000, fees, KRW 75,00, registration fees, and KRW 6,635,460.

(B) this Court 2013j311.

On March 4, 2013, the above court issued a payment order stating that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 146,337,124 won and 9,365,460 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the payment order to the day of full payment."

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). C.

The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on March 12, 2013, and was finalized on March 27, 2013.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to the claim should be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim had not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims facts that fall under the disability or cause of extinction of the right, such as the invalidity or extinguishment of the claim as a false declaration of prior agreement

Supreme Court on June 24, 2010