1. The Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit against Defendant A is as of January 5, 2015, Gwangju District Court 2014Hu19651.

1. The Plaintiff issued a payment order under Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s application for the instant payment order filed against the Defendants upon subsequent completion of Defendant A. This court sent the original copy of the instant payment order to “Ysan City C and 603, the address indicated on the Defendant’s resident registration card,” and at least received the original copy of the instant payment order on January 19, 2015. Defendant A’s mother D received it on March 5, 2015, and the fact that Defendant A raised an objection against the instant payment order to the instant court on March 5, 2015 is apparent in records.

According to the above facts, the period during which Defendant A may raise an objection against the payment order of this case shall be up to February 2, 2015, which is the second share from the date when D was served with the payment order of this case. Since Defendant A filed an objection on March 5, 2015, the period during which Defendant A may raise an objection against the payment order of this case, it is unlawful.

Defendant A asserted that Defendant A was unable to comply with the period of filing an objection due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself because he/she had been served with the original copy of the instant payment order but failed to deliver the original copy of the instant payment order to Defendant A, but such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for subsequent supplement of the objection.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit against Defendant A was terminated by the instant payment order became final and conclusive on February 3, 2015, and Defendant A’s objection against it on March 5, 2015 is unlawful as it was filed with the lapse of the period for filing a formal objection without justifiable grounds.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the purport of the evidence No. 1 to No. 4 and the entire arguments, Defendant A obtained from the Industrial Bank of Korea the total amount of KRW 810,000,000 as stated on each of the following lending dates, as stated on each of the following lending dates, and Defendant B borrowed KRW 480,000,000 for the loans No. 2.