A. On December 15, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming for the payment of the printing price of KRW 7,327,504, in total, to the books printed and supplied by the Plaintiff by June 30, 2016, as the Goyang-si District Court 2016da38286, the Goyang-si District Court 2016Galoro 58286, the printing price of KRW 16,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the printing price of the books printed and supplied by the Plaintiff by June 30, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) from the above court, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 7,327,504 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from October 15, 2016 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case (i.e., January 10, 2017) and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The decision on performance recommendation of this case was finalized on January 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Of the instant performance recommendation decision, the Plaintiff did not enter into a printing contract (printed amounting to KRW 6,545,220) with the Defendant on the remaining reporters except for the Republic of Korea book book (printed amounting to KRW 782,320). 2) As the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint on June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff’s claim for the printed paper amounting to KRW 850,000 against the Defendant’s payment claim for the printed paper amounting to KRW 782,320 against the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion concluded a printing contract with the Defendant as well as the Republic of Korea’s massage book, and delivered the bookors.

3. Determination

A. Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act and Article 5-8(3) of the same Act do not apply to a lawsuit seeking objection, since the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive, and the res judicata does not take place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 6,545,220 won). Therefore, in a lawsuit seeking objection, the decision of performance recommendation does not apply to a lawsuit seeking objection based on the time limit of res judicata effect.