A. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant asserted that he/she lent money to the Plaintiff as the Suwon-si District Court Decision 2017Da16056, and filed a loan lawsuit.

B. On July 12, 2017, the Defendant submitted a detailed statement of deposit transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as evidence. On July 12, 2017, 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 became final and conclusive on August 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

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, as to whether the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely on the basis of health classes, the details of deposit transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and other circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence

(1) On the date of pleading, the Defendant stated to the effect that “A was lent money at that time, and that C did not have the Plaintiff at that site.” Ultimately, the existence and content of the Defendant’s loan claim against the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged. Therefore, compulsory execution against the instant decision on performance recommendation made by the Defendant cannot be permitted.

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