1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Northern District Court Order 2012 tea2557 dated May 10, 2012.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a wife B, who is an auditor of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

B. The Defendant supplied goods to B from September 201 to March 2012, 201, but did not receive KRW 326,002,063 out of the price.

C. On May 3, 2012, the Defendant applied for a payment order against B, a director of Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court 2012 tea2557) and its auditor, and applied for a payment order with respect to the amount of goods unpaid, and the payment order with the same court on May 10, 2012, stating that “326,002,063 won and its delay damages are paid” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

(D) Upon receipt of the order, the above payment order was finalized on June 1, 2012. D. The Defendant, with the title of enforcement of the instant payment order finalized on August 27, 2014, enforced enforcement on the movable property in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff as indicated in the [Attachment List No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4-1, No. 4-1, No. 1, and No. 1, No. 1, No. 2012, No. 4-1, and No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. 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 a lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order with respect to the claim which became the cause of the claim of the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds of 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, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection against the established payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). In light of the current status of executive officers holding shares by the Plaintiff couple, the details of property disposal, etc., the Plaintiff couple tried to punish the said corporate entity.

There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was either abused or abused, and the Plaintiff is against C’s Defendant solely on the ground that it was the wife B and C’s audit.