2. The Defendant shall complete the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 649,99 and its payment from March 15, 2013.

A. The Plaintiff provided labor under employment by the Defendant from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013, but did not receive retirement allowances of KRW 649,99 from the Defendant.

B. On December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of unpaid retirement benefits under the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2013 Ghana6758, and received a decision of performance recommendation with the purport that “649,99 won” and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 15, 2013 to the date of full payment.” The above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

【Ground for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The decision on performance recommendation has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when there is no objection by the defendant against it, and the objection is dismissed or withdrawn (see Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). Since the plaintiff can enforce compulsory execution based on the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation established in the same lawsuit as the subject matter of this case, it is a matter of question whether there is no benefit in the lawsuit of this case

B. Because a notarial deed has an executory power, and there is no res judicata effect, there is a benefit to bring an action in the same claim as the contents of the notarial deed in order to obtain a judgment which

(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s decision on performance recommendation is justifiable and acceptable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except for a dissenting opinion of all participating Justices, except for a dissenting opinion of all participating Justices, except for a dissenting opinion of all participating Justices on the bench. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of a final and conclusive performance recommendation. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of a final and conclusive performance recommendation decision, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. Also, the decision on performance recommendation is res judicata.