[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of No. 1 (including a tentative number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was only the business point of “D” operated by the Plaintiff’s mother C, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract of alcoholic beverages with the Defendant and received alcoholic beverages, and thus, there was no obligation to pay the credit amount claimed by the Defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be rejected.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is consistent with that operated in the name of C, but the Plaintiff actually operated it, and thereafter, the Plaintiff directly ordered the goods and signed the specification of transactions even after the trade name was changed to E.

In addition, considering the circumstances where the Plaintiff did not dispute the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay alcoholic beverages at the time the instant decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff is liable to pay credit sales

3. In case where a decision on performance recommendation has become final and conclusive, the grounds that have arisen prior to a decision on performance recommendation with respect to the claims that form the grounds for such decision, may be asserted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the decision on performance recommendation; and

(See Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act, Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, and the burden of proof as to the grounds for the objection in the lawsuit of objection is also the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.