1. The defendant's decision on performance recommendation for the loan case against the plaintiff was made by Busan District Court 2001Gapo26737.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including branch numbers).

On November 18, 1999, the defendant set the interest rate of KRW 1,00,000 at 36.5% per annum (100,000 per annum on principal amount of KRW 1,00,000 per annum) and lent it to the plaintiff, and then filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the principal and interest on the above loan with Busan District Court 2001Da2673777.

B. In the above litigation proceedings, the decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant 715,000 won (interest 65,000 won unpaid as principal and interest 65,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 36.5% per annum from December 23, 1999 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the principal and interest on the loan of this case”) (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) was delivered to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2001, and became final and conclusive as is on the 23th of the same month.

(However, the plaintiff filed a written objection on September 3, 2001 after the period of objection for two weeks elapsed.

After that, the defendant received 200,000 won around July 8, 2002 as partial repayment of the legal procedure expenses, such as the expenses incurred in filing the above lawsuit, and (2) as the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan of this case, around August 20, 2002, the defendant received 300,000 won around August 20, 200, and 300,000 won on October 7, 2002, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that, since her mother borrowed KRW 1,00,000 from the Defendant by stealing her name, her mother is not responsible for the principal and interest of the instant loan, and therefore, her compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case shall not be permitted. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize her mother solely based on the descriptions of the evidence No. 5-1 and No. 5-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge her mother’s name, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is

B. Next, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with this Opinion.