A. On July 13, 2016, the Defendant asserted that, as the Suwon District Court Decision 2016No. 27610, the Plaintiff received the loan claim against the Plaintiff, and requested the Plaintiff to pay the transfer money.

B. On July 21, 2016, the Defendant submitted, as evidence in the foregoing lawsuit, a written contract for the transfer of claims, a written notice of the transfer of claims, and a written loan receipt (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). On July 21, 2016, the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation that accepts all the above claims of the Defendant (hereinafter “decision of performance recommendation of this case”). The said decision became final and conclusive on September 13, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the decision on performance recommendation has become final and conclusive and the res judicata does not take place, the lawsuit to raise an objection is not subject to the restriction pursuant to the time limitation of res judicata. Therefore, in the hearing of the lawsuit to raise an objection, the determination of all the claims stated in the decision on performance recommendation may be made. In this case, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim is the defendant in the lawsuit to raise an objection.

As to whether C has lent money to the Plaintiff, in full view of the purport of the entire argument as a result of the appraiser D’s appraisal, the signature and sealing of the Plaintiff’s name stated in the loan certificate of this case is not written by the Plaintiff, and thus, the authenticity cannot be acknowledged. The witness C’s testimony is difficult to believe in light of the fact that C did not accurately disclose the source of money lent to the Plaintiff by C, and there is no other evidence to prove that C has lent money to the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the existence and content of the loan claim against the plaintiff cannot be recognized, so the defendant's right to claim the transfer money against the plaintiff under the premise of the existence of the above loan claim does not exist.

Therefore, the execution recommendation decision of this case is made.