1. The Defendant’s decision to recommend the collection of the collection amount to the Plaintiff by the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court 2016 Ghana216676.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for provisional attachment of the claim for return of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff in relation to the lease agreement, Orcheon-gu D building and Na-dong 301 (hereinafter “instant building”) against the Plaintiff, Orcheon-gu, Ocheon-gu, Seoul, and Na-dong 301 (hereinafter “instant building”) with the obligation to seize and collect the service charge claim amounting to KRW 4,480,000 against the obligor C of Busan District Court 2016 Tacheon-gu, Incheon District Court 2016, and the said court issued a decision to accept it on July 4, 2016 (hereinafter “instant attachment and collection order”).

B. Based on the instant order of seizure and collection, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the collection amount under the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Office 2016 Ghana216766, and the said court rendered a decision on December 21, 2016 to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 4,480,000 and damages for delay therefrom” (hereinafter “decision on the instant performance recommendation”), and the instant decision on the performance recommendation was finalized on January 7, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the wife E on the instant building only, but did not enter into a lease agreement with C. Therefore, the attachment and collection order of this case is invalid as it is against the claim for which there is no collection order.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case, which is premised on the validity of the seizure and collection order of this case, should be dismissed.

B. Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that when the defendant does not raise an objection within a fixed period of time, a decision of rejection of an objection, or an objection is withdrawn, the decision of performance recommendation shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment.

However, there is an objection against the final judgment.