(2) On March 23, 2018, this Court rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the effect that “the plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay KRW 12,580,000 to the defendant and its delay damages,” and the decision of performance recommendation was finalized on April 12, 2018.

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

2. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the above decision of performance recommendation should be denied, since there is no claim for discretionary processing costs against the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff operated the business of this case with husband C, and that the plaintiff and C jointly bear the obligation to pay the full-time processing price for the defendant.

3. Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that the assertion of objection against a claim for a decision on performance recommendation shall not be subject to the restriction pursuant to the above Civil Execution Act. As to the final decision on performance recommendation, the grounds arising prior to such decision may also be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the claim.

Furthermore, in a lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof on the grounds of objection should be followed by the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In a lawsuit of objection against the final decision of performance recommendation, where the plaintiff asserts that he/she did not establish the defendant's claim, the defendant is liable to prove the fact

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.).