A. The defendant alleged that "the plaintiff borrowed 10 million won from the defendant on May 20, 2002 on a monthly interest rate of 2%, and on May 20, 2004, the due date of payment period of 204." On May 7, 2010, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for a loan claim against the plaintiff as Seoul Southern District Court 2010 Ghana89119, and on May 18, 2010, "the plaintiff paid 10 million won to the defendant and the amount calculated at the rate of 2% per month from May 21, 2004 to the date of full payment." The above decision was finalized around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (b)

The Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant totaling KRW 1,394,00,000 from October 18, 2004 to January 14, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute exists, Gap 1's statement, purport of whole pleading

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the assertion argues that since the Plaintiff did not have an interest or maturity agreement on the instant loan and repaid the loan in excess of KRW 10 million with the principal borrowed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow the loan to the Defendant was extinguished, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation of the instant case should be denied.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 139.4 million repaid by the Plaintiff should be first appropriated from May 21, 2004 to the damages for delay in accordance with the agreed rate of KRW 2% per month from May 21, 2004, and that the Plaintiff’s obligation remains in KRW 3,397,000 for principal and KRW 9,103,200 as of July 21, 2015.

B. Since the decision on performance recommendation has no res judicata effect even if the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive, in a lawsuit of demurrer, the failure or invalidation of the right to claim prior to the decision on performance recommendation is also a ground for objection. In this case, the burden of proof as to the establishment of the right to claim is the person who asserts the existence of the

In this regard, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the defendant, and whether there was an agreement for interest and the repayment period.