1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On the ground that the Defendant supplied livestock products to B (hereinafter “instant company”) and the Plaintiff, the representative director of the instant company, as a joint and several surety for the outstanding amount of the supplied livestock products of the instant company, filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price of goods with the instant company and the Plaintiff as Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 Ghana27298, stating that “The instant company and the Plaintiff jointly and severally pay to the Defendant 4,597,494 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2014 to the date of complete payment.”

B. On June 1, 2015, the foregoing court decided to recommend the instant company and the Plaintiff to implement the recommendations in accordance with the Defendant’s purport, and on June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff became final and conclusive on June 18, 2015 due to the Plaintiff’s receipt of the said recommendations and the lack of objection.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was not consistent with the Defendant’s strong and several sureties, and signed the letter of payment (Evidence A 4) written by the Defendant. It was signed in the meaning of confirming the unpaid goods payment obligation from the representative director’s qualification, and it was not personal joint and several sureties for the company’s goods payment obligation.

At the time of signing the instant letter of payment, the Plaintiff clearly expressed to the Defendant’s employee that the Plaintiff was not liable for personal debt, and deleted from “Return and principal” in Section 4 of the instant letter of payment, and signed it.

Therefore, since the plaintiff does not bear the joint and several liability against the defendant, compulsory execution based on the above decision of performance recommendation should not be permitted.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the Gap evidence No. 4 (the letter of payment in this case and the annexed sheet).