A. On March 25, 2011, the Defendant asserted that he/she lent money to the Plaintiff as the Suwon-si District Court 201Gau9780, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 201, and filed a loan lawsuit.

B. On March 31, 2011, the Defendant submitted a certificate of cash rent prepared by the Plaintiff in the said lawsuit as evidence, and the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation that accepts all the Defendant’s above claims (hereinafter “instant decision of performance recommendation”), and the said decision was finalized on May 24, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The decision on performance recommendation does not take place even after the final and conclusive decision has become final and conclusive, and thus, the restriction is not applied to a lawsuit of demurrer pursuant to the time limit of res judicata. Therefore, in the hearing of the relevant lawsuit of objection, the determination of performance recommendation may be possible in the hearing of all the claims stated in the decision on performance recommendation. In this case, the burden of proof for the existence or establishment of the claim shall be deemed to be the defendant in the lawsuit of objection.

In this case, it is difficult to believe whether the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff, in light of the body of the part in which the Defendant’s name was written (B) and the relation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time and the circumstances leading to late litigation, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Ultimately, since the existence and content of the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff cannot be recognized, compulsory execution against which the instant decision on performance recommendation was made as executive title is not permissible.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.