1. Ulsan District Court 2009j1790 against the defendant's plaintiff is based on the original payment order.

1. Around March 2009, the defendant sought a payment order against the plaintiff and received the same payment order at that time. The above payment order was finalized around that time:

(Ulsan District Court 2009j1790). The cause of the claim was October 1, 2008 that the defendant lent KRW 90 million to the plaintiff on October 1, 2008.

The purport of the claim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant a detailed statement about the amount of KRW 90 million and damages for delay.

[Ground for Recognition]: Evidence A and the fact that there is no dispute

2. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the reason for failure or invalidation, etc. occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order with respect to the claim which became the cause of the request of the payment order, and the burden of proof with respect to the cause of claim objection in such lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden 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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). The Defendant, on the ground that an order for payment was already finalized, made a defense of safety that the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful on the ground that the order for payment was already finalized, but cannot be accepted in light

Furthermore, examining the case in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff asserted that the loan claim, which was the cause of the claim for the payment order, was not established. The Defendant failed to properly assert and prove the loan, as so alleged, and the Defendant merely has a claim against the Plaintiff based on the above payment order.