1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2018 Ghana42154 regarding the purchase price of goods.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 22, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the payment of goods with the Seoul Southern District Court 2018Gau42154, on the ground that the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with the goods equivalent to KRW 6,848,50, out of the advance payment of KRW 9,796,50, which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff for the production of goods.

B. On November 13, 2018, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the following day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint as to KRW 6,846,50 and the amount of money calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.” The Plaintiff was served with the original copy of the instant decision on performance recommendation on November 20,

C. The instant decision of execution recommendation became final and conclusive around that time by the Plaintiff’s failure to submit a written objection to the instant decision of execution recommendation to the court.

(Plaintiff sent a written objection to the instant decision on performance recommendation by content-certified mail to the Defendant on December 3, 2018). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a contract for the production and delivery of minccco/cke (hereinafter “instant mincco supply contract”) on July 18, 201 with D, which is called “C” and does not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant is a party to the instant mincco supply contract, and the Plaintiff is not a party to the instant mincco supply contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is not obliged to return the price of goods under the instant minc supply contract to the Defendant.

In addition, regardless of whether the Plaintiff is a party to the instant programming delivery contract, the Defendant and “C” did not engage in any transaction under the instant programming delivery contract after February 28, 2013, and thus, the Defendant’s objection.