1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2018Gaso7147 dated March 14, 2018.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the defendant received a decision on performance recommendation as stated in Paragraph (1) ordering the plaintiff on March 14, 2018 to pay "3,00,000 won for loans and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day on which the decision on performance recommendation was served to the day of complete payment (hereinafter referred to as "decision on performance recommendation in this case"). The above decision was served on the plaintiff on May 13, 2018, and confirmed around that time. The plaintiff on November 28, 2018, the principal and interest of the decision on performance recommendation in this case were 3,245,342 won (= Principal 3,00,000 won) (i.e., the day following the date on which the decision on performance recommendation was served to November 28, 2018; and thus, the fact of enforcement recommendation in this case shall be rejected by 15% per annum 24,25425,275).

The defendant, at the request of C, the plaintiff's spouse, deposited the above loan of KRW 3,00,00,00 in the passbook in the name of the plaintiff. Since C, as the plaintiff's spouse, by deceiving the defendant and by deceiving the defendant, is liable to pay the same amount of money to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's spouse cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until being paid the above KRW 100,000,000. However, the execution power of the decision of performance recommendation of this case is limited to the defendant's loan claims against the plaintiff and the expenses required for the execution of the deadline, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's claim against C has executory power. Even if the plaintiff has a substantial economic interest as a economic community, even if the plaintiff has a different legal interest, the circumstance that the defendant's claim against C did not have been repaid is not a reason to block the execution of the decision of performance recommendation of this case.