1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 19, 2014, the Defendant entered into a service contract with the Plaintiff for waste treatment (hereinafter “instant service contract”) and treated wastes from March 19, 2014 to April 1, 2014. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff failed to pay KRW 8,690,000 for the aforementioned waste treatment costs, and filed an application for payment order seeking payment of waste treatment costs on September 2, 2014 with the instant court 2014 tea1775 case.

B. On October 30, 2014, the instant court issued a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 8,690,000 to the Defendant and any delay damages therefrom,” and the said payment order was finalized as it is.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 2 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not enter into the instant service contract with the Defendant, and the parties to the said service contract are B, and the Plaintiff is merely a person who transported wastes by using the Plaintiff’s vehicle upon entrustment of waste transport from B, and thus, was not obligated to pay the instant service cost, and thus, sought non-performance of compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.

3. Determination

A. Since the payment order has become final and conclusive but res judicata does not arise, the obligor on the payment order can assert the non-existence or invalidity of the claim on the grounds before the payment order is issued. As such, where the obligor claims the non-existence of the claim on the payment order established and files a lawsuit with the obligor, the burden of proof on the existence or establishment of the claim is the obligee who requested the payment order

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the instant case’s health team, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.5 million to the Defendant in cash regarding the service price of the instant case, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 4 million to the Defendant by wire.