A. A. Around August 20, 2007, the performance bond subscription form under the Plaintiff’s name was submitted to the Defendant, and the details are as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as "this case's subscription". The plaintiff/insured: The plaintiff/insured: insurance coverage amount: 5,000,000 won in the case of the contract for the settlement of accounts (hereinafter referred to as the "YU") / the insurance coverage amount: from August 20, 2007 to August 20, 2008 / the contents of the guarantee: the guarantee of the business guarantee amount of the company for the settlement of accounts by the company for the settlement of accounts in the case of the company for the settlement of accounts.

B. On December 12, 2008, the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 as insurance money to the Chungcheong Examination on the premise that the performance guarantee insurance contract as stated in the instant subscription was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, based on the content of the contract.

C. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim for reimbursement of the above insurance proceeds and its delay damages, etc. with the court 2009Gada3155, and on March 2, 2009, the defendant received a decision of performance recommendation stating that "the plaintiff shall pay 5,00,000 won to the defendant and the amount equivalent to 19% per annum from December 13, 2008 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date," and the plaintiff received a certified copy of the decision of performance recommendation of this case on March 5, 2009, but did not raise any objection, and was treated as final and conclusive on March 20, 209.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). 【No dispute exists, Eul’s evidence 2-1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not prepare the written offer of this case, and since the written offer of this case was forged by C, compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case shall be dismissed.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not raise an objection despite having received the above decision of performance recommendation, the instant offer ought to be deemed to have been made with the Plaintiff’s consent.

3. Determination.