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

A. The Plaintiff has previously been working in a business entity. The Plaintiff has been working in the business entity.

B. On February 22, 2011, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant by September 22, 2011” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) from the Plaintiff and paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant on the side of “C” around that time.

C. On November 13, 2012, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the loan based on the loan certificate of this case with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office Branch Branch Office Branch Branch Branch Office Branch Branch Office Branch Branch Office Branch Office Branch Office Branch Office 2013 Ghana 3765 upon the Plaintiff’s filing of an objection against the payment order issued by the court (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”). On September 2, 2013, the court rendered a payment order by November 30, 2013, “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally with D and the Defendant pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% from the date following the date of payment to the date of full payment.” Accordingly, the settlement recommendation became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “decision on Recommendation for Settlement in this case”). 【The ground for recognition / [the fact that there is no dispute, entry B in the evidence No. 1, significant facts in this court, and the purport of all pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff prepared and delivered the loan certificate of this case to the defendant with respect to the money that the plaintiff did not actually borrow by the defendant's coercion, and that the plaintiff did not actively respond to the previous lawsuit related to the above loan certificate, and that the decision of recommending settlement of this case became final and conclusive because it did not actively respond to the previous lawsuit related to the above loan certificate, and that the defendant is seeking confirmation of the non-existence of debt based on

3. A decision to recommend reconciliation.