1. The defendant's order for payment in the compensation case for damages against the plaintiff 2018 tea 52, Dongdaecheon District Court of the Republic of Korea.

1. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff under the Jung-gu District Court 2018Ra52, Dongbcheon-si, Seoul District Court. The payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) dated March 12, 2018, sent to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2018, and the instant payment order was finalized on April 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order as to the cause of a claim, the grounds such as failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The burden of proof as to the cause of objection as to the claim in a lawsuit of objection shall be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in 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 Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). Therefore, even in this case, the Defendant bears the burden of proving that the damage was caused by the Plaintiff, and the entries of the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including each number) are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s salt level was teared by the Plaintiff’s intentional or negligent act, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.