A. In the case of the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) on October 8, 2013 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 9,267,00 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from April 30, 2012 to the date of delivery of the complaint, and the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”), and the said decision on performance recommendation was finalized around that time.

B. The grounds for the claim for reimbursement claim as above are that “the vehicle A, B, C, and D (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) was damaged by the chemical dust discharged by the Plaintiff around 11:00 on January 20, 2013, and the Defendant paid the insurance money as the insurer of the instant vehicle, and thus, the Defendant acquired the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff in accordance with the insurer subrogation provision.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 4, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The burden of proof as to the grounds for the objection in a lawsuit of demurrer shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, when the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not established, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was damaged by chemical dust discharged at around 11:00 on January 20, 2013 by the statement of No. 1 of the evidence No. 1 of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s argument on the grounds of the above claim cannot be accepted.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be rejected.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.