1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 16, 2016, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff and C for a payment order for the goods payment case with the Changwon District Court 2016 tea 732, Changnam District Court 2016. The Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s delivery place into “E located in Jjin-gu, Changwon-si.”

B. On June 17, 2016, the above court issued a payment order stating that “The plaintiff and C jointly and severally pay to the defendant 20,917,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On June 23, 2016, the instant payment order was served to the plaintiff as the service place and C received as the plaintiff’s live-in capacity.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. A lawsuit of demurrer against a related legal doctrine claim is subject to a valid executive title.

An order for payment shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when no objection is raised, an objection is withdrawn, or a decision of dismissal becomes final and conclusive, and since an order for payment which is uncertain cannot become an effective executive title, an objection may not be raised against a request for exclusion of executive force against this.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da70012, Nov. 15, 2012). Meanwhile, service should, in principle, be made at the “place of service, such as the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office, etc., of a person to be served” as prescribed by Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; “a person to be served as supplementary service” under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a person who belongs to the same household as the person to be served and lives together with the same person.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2013Ma696, Aug. 27, 2013). (B)

In this case, based on the above legal principles, the above facts of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 are considered as a whole.