1. The Seoul Central District Court 2017Gaso7142182 rendered a decision on the Defendant’s recommendation of performance against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was present at the credit card holders of C Co., Ltd. and was issued a credit card and used until October 4, 2004 with the credit card, and was in arrears with the credit card price.

B. The Plaintiff was present at D’s credit card holders and was issued a credit card and did not pay the credit card amount until September 16, 2004. The Plaintiff repaid KRW 120,359 on May 29, 2008.

C. The Defendant received the assignment of claims from each of the above credit card companies to the Plaintiff and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims.

On September 20, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the amount of takeover under this Court No. 2017Gaso7142182, and the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation on November 30, 2017 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum for KRW 23,05,773 and KRW 6,739,615 from October 7, 2016 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”).

The instant decision on performance recommendation was finalized on February 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the records of this court C Co., Ltd., and the response of each order to submit financial transaction information to D Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s credit card purchase-price claim that the Defendant acquired has already ceased to exist with the intention of the statute of limitations at the time of the instant performance recommendation decision, and thus, sought the exclusion of the executory power of the said performance recommendation decision, which was based on the claim that expired.

Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that an objection against a final and conclusive decision on performance recommendation shall not be subject to restrictions pursuant to the provisions of Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act (the grounds for objection against a final and conclusive decision shall have arisen after the conclusion of pleadings). As such, in a lawsuit seeking objection against a decision on performance recommendation, a claim arising after the decision on performance recommendation is made.