1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the loan case (Seoul Central District Court 2015Gaso8016) against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 19, 2015, the decision on performance recommendation under Paragraph 1 of this Article was finalized on May 19, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the "decision on recommendations for execution of this case").

The claim which is the cause of the claim for the decision on performance recommendation of this case is that the defendant lent the loan to C on September 21, 2004, and it is the plaintiff's joint and several obligation as the interest or delay damages at the rate of 34.9% per annum from February 18, 2005 to the date of full payment of the loan's principal and interest.

(hereinafter the instant joint and several liability claim. The Defendant’s claim against C is only the instant claim. The Defendant’s claim against the instant joint and several liability claim becomes final and conclusive in the lawsuit filed by the Defendant for the interruption of the prescription period for the instant joint and several liability claim).

On August 28, 1991, the Plaintiff got married with C and had two children, but on March 19, 2009, reported divorce.

[Reasons for Recognition] 3 to 5 Evidence A

2. The assertion;

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no joint and several surety claim of this case since the plaintiff had not been jointly and severally guaranteed with respect to the claim of this case, and sought non-performance of execution of the decision of performance recommendation of this case.

B. The defendant asserts that C has jointly and severally guaranteed the claim of this case on behalf of the plaintiff, and even if C does not have the right of representation, it is established as a expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act by using the right of representation as the basic right of representation as to a couple's daily family affairs. Thus, the plaintiff should be liable for joint and several sureties, and since the plaintiff was served with the decision of performance recommendation of this case and did not raise any objection, the execution of the decision of performance recommendation

3. Determination

A. 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, the decision of rejection of the objection becomes final, or the objection is withdrawn, the decision of performance recommendation shall be final and conclusive.