1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the Jeonju District Court Decision 2015 Ghana48715.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant received a provisional attachment order as to KRW 17,33,000, out of the construction cost claim of the D ground neighborhood living facilities and the construction work for detached houses (hereinafter “instant construction work”) owned by C against the Plaintiff, as the Jeonju District Court 2014Kadan3425 on October 20, 2014.

Meanwhile, the Defendant filed an application for payment order against C with the Jeonju District Court 2012 tea5265 and received payment order of KRW 17,33,000 on October 13, 2012, which became final and conclusive around that time.

Since then, on December 12, 2014, based on the executory exemplification of the above payment order, the Defendant was ordered to attach claims and complete orders to transfer the provisional seizure to the original seizure by the Jeonju District Court 2014TTT1066, which was served on the Plaintiff on December 18, 2014, and became final and conclusive on February 3, 2015.

B. On September 15, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the full payment of KRW 17,33,000 against the Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Da48715, and received a decision of performance recommendation ordering the payment of KRW 17,33,00 on September 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant decision of performance recommendation”), which became final and conclusive on October 2, 2015 as the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the decision on performance recommendation has become final and conclusive and conclusive and thus res judicata does not take place, and thus, the lawsuit to raise an objection is not subject to the restriction pursuant to the time limitation of res judicata. Therefore, in the hearing of the lawsuit to raise an objection, the determination of all the claims stated in the decision on performance recommendation may be made on the grounds of the claim. In this case, the burden of proof for the existence or establishment of the claim is the defendant in the lawsuit to raise an objection.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009). The Defendant contracted the instant construction work to C with the price of KRW 220 million. The Plaintiff not only completed the said construction but also implemented additional construction.