1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the purchase price for goods (Seoul Northern District Court 2012Da31865) against the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C by this Court No. 2012 Ghana31865, and the Plaintiff, as stated in the Defendant’s purport, concluded a performance recommendation decision on September 7, 2012, stating that the Plaintiff shall pay a sum of KRW 15,387,60 and delay damages to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the decision on performance recommendation has become final and conclusive and the res judicata does not take place, the restriction is not applied to a lawsuit of demurrer pursuant to the time limit of res judicata (Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). In a lawsuit of demurrer, the determination on performance recommendation may be deliberated and determined as to 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 of objection.

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff is a person who bears the obligation to pay for the goods following the decision on performance recommendation as above, who is the Plaintiff’s punishment D and D, and the Plaintiff asserts that it is not the above debtor. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff is the debtor for the goods. There is no other evidence to acknowledge

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 3 through 7, and Nos. 1 through 3, the complaint filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff and C, and the Plaintiff and C have continuously engaged in goods transactions, and the Defendant and the F jointly operated by the Plaintiff and C have continuously been claimed. However, the above F is operated by the Plaintiff’s type D and the convict C, and the Plaintiff did not operate the F or have engaged in goods transactions with the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

B. The defendant raised an objection to the claim of this case, and the plaintiff is liable or directly as the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.