beta
Text
1. The defendant's decision of performance recommendation as of February 25, 2008 against the plaintiff was based on the court's decision of performance recommendation as of February 25, 2008.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The facts of recognition (1) The defendant filed a claim against the plaintiff for wages with this court 2008Gaso26485, and in the above case, "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 3,380,000 won and 20% interest per annum from August 1, 2007 to the date of full payment" was finalized at that time by the decision of performance recommendation made on February 25, 2008.
(2) The Plaintiff paid 300,000 won as wages to the Defendant on August 1, 2007, which was before the Defendant made the above claim. The Plaintiff paid 100,000 won on January 15, 2009, which was after the decision of performance recommendation, and paid 190,000 won on February 13, 2009, and 200,000 won on February 17, 2009, five (1,000,000 won on May 5, 2009, and 60,000 won on July 10, 2009, 30,000 won on August 20, 209, and 200, 300,000 won on September 30, 200, 2009, and 300,009,000 won on September 10, 2009.
(3) Nevertheless, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Bank of Korea based on the above performance recommendation decision by this Court 2016TT 113789.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Even if a final and conclusive decision on performance recommendation does not take place as res judicata, the grounds arising prior to such decision are also asserted in a lawsuit of objection as to the final and conclusive decision on performance recommendation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009). According to the above findings, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s obligation based on the said decision on performance recommendation against the Defendant starts with the performance as of August 1, 2007, which was prior to the said decision on performance recommendation, and eventually becomes extinct by settlement between the parties on October 1, 2009, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking the exclusion of enforcement force has merit.
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.