1. The Defendant’s payment order issued on March 11, 2014, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014 tea5738 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 7, 2014, the Defendant introduced nine construction sites to the Plaintiff from 2006 to 2010, and concluded a construction contract equivalent to KRW 3,570,800,000 for the said construction site and managed the said site. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant KRW 71,40,000, which is 2% of the above construction cost, to the Defendant as service cost. Since the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 53,416,00 among them, it would be expected that only a minimum cost should be paid, and the Defendant applied for an order to pay the construction cost of KRW 15,00,000 to the Seoul Southern District Court 2055738.

B. On March 11, 2014, the instant court rendered a decision on a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant payment order”) and the said order was served on the Plaintiff on March 7, 2014, and did not object thereto.

4.1. Finality has been made.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there is no construction cost under the name of the service cost claimed by the Defendant, and there is domestic affairs.

Even if the instant payment order constitutes a claim for construction works under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and thus, the three-year short-term extinctive prescription has expired.

3. A. Determination as to the cause of the claim: (a) First of all, whether there exists an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the payment of service costs, such as the Defendant’s assertion, or in the case of a finalized payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation arising prior to the issuance of the payment order regarding the claim which is the cause of the claim of the order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order; and (b) the burden of proof as to the cause of objection in the lawsuit of objection shall be in accordance with the principle of sharing the burden of proof

Therefore, the plaintiff did not establish the defendant's claim in the lawsuit of objection against the established payment order.