1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2014 Ghana48312 for the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against D against D for the claim for collection of the amount to be collected by the District Court 2012 Ghana6572. On April 19, 2012, the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation, and the said decision of performance recommendation was finalized on April 19, 2012.

B. On February 10, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs for collection prohibition under the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2014Gadan48312 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant performance recommendation decision”) on July 24, 2014, and obtained the decision of the acceptance on February 18, 2014 by requesting a seizure and collection order on the right to claim the return of the lease deposit held by the Plaintiffs. After serving the Plaintiffs on March 21, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs for collection prohibition under the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2014Gadan48312 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant performance recommendation decision”). The instant performance recommendation decision became final and conclusive on August 14, 2014 because the Plaintiffs did not raise any objection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case is based on the premise that D has a claim to return the deposit to the plaintiffs. However, D is a pro-friendly type of plaintiff B, and it does not have a real lease contract since it only transferred the address to the plaintiff B's residence. Thus, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be dismissed.

B. Since the decision on performance recommendation does not bring an effect of res judicata even if it becomes final and conclusive, the decision on performance recommendation does not apply to a lawsuit seeking objection pursuant to the time limit for res judicata as stipulated in Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act (Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). Accordingly, in examining a lawsuit seeking objection, the propriety of all the claims as stated in the decision on performance recommendation may be determined.

According to the evidence No. 4, D, November 20, 2012, 201, the case is "Seoul-si E 301 et al., the plaintiffs' joint ownership."