1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the original copy of the payment order, Daejeon District Court 2018 tea1099.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 22, 2017, the Defendant transferred KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff’s SC Bank account (C).

B. Around March 2018, the Defendant filed an application with the Daejeon District Court for a payment order against the Plaintiff to seek payment of the loan, and the said court issued the payment order on March 16, 2018 stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant and its delayed payment damages” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order was finalized on May 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive and the res judicata does not arise even if the payment order has become final and conclusive, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, the failure of the claim prior to the payment order also becomes a ground for objection, and in this case, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim is against the defendant in the lawsuit of demurrer

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s remittance of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff’s account. However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant did not disclose the terms of a loan agreement for consumption, such as maturity and interest; and (c) did not submit any other objective data to deem that there was an agreement with the intent to lend the said money at the time of the payment of the loan; and (b) there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s credit against the Plaintiff was established and existing; and (c) there was no other evidence to acknowledge

(M) In light of the purport of Gap evidence No. 10 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff allowed male-child job-friendly D to use his SC Bank passbook, and D to transfer KRW 20 million from the defendant to the above account).

In accordance with the theory of the lawsuit, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be rejected.

3. Conclusion