A. On March 8, 2010, the Defendant remitted KRW 20 million to the account in the name of the Plaintiff, including KRW 10 million, and KRW 10 million on March 19, 2010.

B. On May 16, 201, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s father C seeking payment of KRW 20 million as unjust enrichment on the ground that, while the Plaintiff and C wanting to deliver aggregate and soil, etc., the Plaintiff and C transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant on March 8, 2010 and KRW 10 million on March 19, 2010, but the Plaintiff and C did not deliver aggregate and soil, etc., and thus, the Defendant was obligated to return KRW 20 million as unjust enrichment on the ground that the Plaintiff and C were obligated to return aggregate and soil, etc., and received a decision on performance recommendation from the Defendant on May 25, 2011 (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation”).

The decision on performance recommendation was made on June 15, 201 with respect to C, and on December 1, 201 with respect to the Plaintiff, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not know the Defendant as a minor at the time of 2010 and did not know the Defendant, and only received money from the Defendant through the account in the name of the Plaintiff that C was an infant with bad credit standing.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case, which was made on the premise that the plaintiff was in a transaction with the defendant, should be dismissed.

B. As to the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, the grounds arising prior to such decision may also be asserted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009). Meanwhile, in a lawsuit of demurrer, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a claim should be in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in a general civil procedure. Therefore, in a case where the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s claim did not exist, the Defendant is not established.