1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for a loan with the Jeonju District Court 2015Da5343, which was the cause of the claim. The Defendant received a loan from the Salary Credit Union on November 22, 2011, and lent KRW 8,00,000 to the Plaintiff. However, unlike the promise, the Plaintiff sought payment of the loan amounting to KRW 9,686,561 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the loan properly.

B. On January 28, 2015, the Jeonju District Court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay to the Defendant 9,686,561 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the above complaint to the day of full payment.

The decision on performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff on February 3, 2015, and was finalized on February 18, 2015.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The party’s assertion 1) The person who borrowed the above KRW 8,00,000 from the Defendant’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s mother C, and merely transferred the above KRW 8,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s account. As such, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation should be denied. 2) The Defendant’s assertion summary ① The Plaintiff is the party who directly borrowed the above KRW 8,00,000 from the Defendant.

② Even if not, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to grant the right of representation to borrow money in the name of the Plaintiff to C by transferring the passbook account and password under the Plaintiff’s name to C. However, the Defendant believed that C had the right of representation to borrow money in the name of the Plaintiff, and there was no negligence in reliance on the trust and good faith, the Plaintiff is liable to act as an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act.

B. The decision on performance recommendation of the relevant legal doctrine does not take place even after the final and conclusive decision has become final and conclusive, and thus, the lawsuit to raise an objection does not apply to the restriction based on the time limit of res judicata. Therefore, the relevant lawsuit is subject to objection.