2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff and the Appointed C were married, but they were divorced, and the Non-Party D is the father of the Appointed C, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the remaining Appointors (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) are children of the above D.

B. The above D applied for the conciliation of the agreed amount with the Jeonju District Court 99s.15597, and the decision in lieu of conciliation was finalized on January 7, 2000.

C. In order to extend the prescription period, the above D filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for the agreed amount as the Jeonju District Court Decision 2008Da122059, and the decision on performance recommendation on May 19, 2009 (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”) became final and conclusive.

On May 19, 2015, the defendant et al. died of the foregoing D and received an execution clause succeeded to the decision of performance recommendation of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's decision on the cause of the plaintiff's claim was served on May 2, 2009 on the person living together with the defendant on May 2, 2009, and confirmed on May 19, 2009. At the time, the plaintiff was living together with his domicile in the circumstance, and the above E was not a person living together with the plaintiff, and the above E was not notified to the plaintiff even after being served with a certified copy of the above succession execution clause as above. The plaintiff was aware that the decision on the recommendation of execution became final and conclusive on May 19, 2015 and completed the above lawsuit. Since the decision on the recommendation of execution of this case was defective in the formation procedure, it is argued to the purport that compulsory execution based on the decision on the recommendation of execution of this case by the defendant et al. should not be denied, but since the non-performance of executive title is not a ground for the non-performance of executive title formation procedure, the plaintiff's above assertion by the plaintiff is no longer reasonable.

In addition, the decision in lieu of the conciliation in the case of the Jeonju District Court 99s.15597 has already become final and conclusive, and thus, it is subject to res judicata.