1. The Defendant’s judgment on the Plaintiff is based on the original payment order for the loan case No. 2012 tea2801.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 2008, the Defendant received the borrower’s loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) from D (the name before the name of the name of the Plaintiff (the name of the name of the name of the name of the Plaintiff): D, the father of D (the name of the name of the name of the name of the Plaintiff), and the Plaintiff as the guarantor, and lent KRW 45 million to D.

B. On June 28, 2012, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff and D for a payment order seeking performance of obligations based on the instant loan certificate with the court 2012 tea2801, and the said payment order was finalized on October 9, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1, witness D’s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against the claim should 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). B.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff bears the guaranteed obligation as long as he affixes his seal on the guarantor column for the loan certificate of this case. First, the part on the guarantor Nos. 1 (Evidence) consistent with the defendant's argument cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff signed and sealed the loan certificate of this case as the guarantor, or that D was delegated by the plaintiff with the authority to represent and affix his signature and seal, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to the defendant for D's obligations.