1. The defendant's recommendation decision on December 19, 205 regarding the defendant's claim for the payment of goods against the plaintiff of this court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the price of goods with this Court No. 2005GaBa26387, Dec. 19, 2005, including the following day of delivery of a copy of the complaint to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff of this case) and that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) 6,218,190 won with interest of 20% per annum from the day of delivery of the copy of the complaint to the day of full payment (hereinafter “the decision of execution recommendation of this case”). The decision of execution recommendation of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2006 and became final and conclusive on March 3, 2006.

B. On December 10, 2014, this Court rendered a decision to suspend compulsory execution based on the instant decision on performance recommendation, subject to the offer of collateral, with respect to the case of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2014Kaga7497.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution by the decision of performance recommendation of this case should not be denied, since there was no fact that he had traded goods with the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant, upon introduction of C, supplied building materials from June 2002 to October 20, 2004 to the plaintiff who had engaged in construction business as D, and filed a lawsuit without receiving KRW 6,218,190 out of the price of the goods, and claimed that the execution recommendation of this case was decided.

B. (1) 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 applicable to a lawsuit seeking an objection against such decision based on the time limit of res judicata (Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). In a lawsuit seeking the objection, the determination may be made on all the claims indicated in the decision on performance recommendation. In this case, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim shall be borne by the creditor, i.e., the defendant in the lawsuit claiming the objection.

(2) Each statement of scamba, B-7 through 9 is alone made by the Defendant.