1. Based on the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation (No. 2014Gabu7131) against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. In the case of loans 2014Gabu7131 rendered by Gangseo-gu District Court of Chuncheon, the fact that the decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) was made to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay to the Defendant KRW 10 million and delay damages therefrom,” and that the final decision on March 26, 2015 became final and conclusive is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant remitted 10 million won to the plaintiff's passbook on May 16, 2008. However, the defendant did not lend money to the plaintiff, but only received money to the plaintiff's passbook upon the plaintiff's request with the defendant who was running the business of selling pine trees with the defendant at the time. Thus, the plaintiff's loan obligation against the defendant does not exist.

B. 1) Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that when a defendant does not raise an objection within a specified period, a decision of rejection of an objection, or an objection is withdrawn, the decision of performance recommendation shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment.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, contrary to Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act, which limits the grounds for objection against a final and conclusive judgment to be arising from a final and conclusive judgment (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings, subsequent to the final and conclusive judgment), shall not be subject to the restriction pursuant to the above Civil Execution Act. As such, the grounds arising prior to the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation shall also be asserted in a lawsuit for objection against a final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009). Meanwhile, even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the amount can be received, the obligee claims for the receipt of loan for consumption.