1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s Gwangju District Court Decision No. 2014j807 against Plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs have a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 25,000,000 against the Plaintiffs, and filed an application for the payment order of the said amount (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2014 tea807.

B. The above payment order was served on May 21, 2014 on the Plaintiff A, and on May 19, 2014 on the Plaintiff B, respectively.

C. On June 2, 2014, and June 3, 2014, Plaintiff A submitted a document containing the contents of an objection against the above payment order to the above court as “a preparatory document,” respectively. D.

Nevertheless, the above payment order was final and conclusive, and this was carried out as executive title, and the compulsory auction was carried out as the Gwangju District Court 2014No. 4019 for corporeal movables owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant was paid 457,140 won.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy or Gap's written evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 16, Gap's or 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio the determination on the legitimacy of the Plaintiff A’s lawsuit, and the lawsuit of demurrer refers to a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of executory power by asserting the substantive reasons with respect to the claim indicated in the executive title, such as the final and conclusive judgment by the debtor, etc. (Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act), and is subject to valid executive titles.

In addition, payment order has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when there is no objection, a withdrawal of objection, or a decision of rejection becomes final and conclusive (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since payment order in a final and conclusive state cannot become an effective executive title, a lawsuit of objection seeking the exclusion of executive force can not be filed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da70012, Nov. 15, 2012). However, as seen earlier, Plaintiff A submitted to the court a preparatory document that denies the Defendant’s claim within two weeks from the time of receipt of the instant payment order, without relation to the name of the document.