1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract with the construction cost of KRW 70 million (excluding value-added tax) and the period from April 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018 with respect to the removal of buildings and the interior works (hereinafter “instant construction works”) located in Jung-gu Daejeon-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction work from May 31, 2018 to August 7, 2018, the agreed construction period, and filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of KRW 11,492,00 for delay damages against the Plaintiff, against the Plaintiff.

On September 26, 2019, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that "if the plaintiff delays the payment of the above amount, the plaintiff shall pay the defendant 10 million won by November 30, 2019. In the event that the plaintiff delays the payment of the above amount, compensation for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the day following the above payment date to the day of full payment. The defendant waives the remainder of claims." The above ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as "the ruling of recommending reconciliation in this case") became final and conclusive on September 26, 2019.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant changed the construction period of this case to July 29, 2018 through the second contract. As such, the Plaintiff did not delay the instant construction work.

Therefore, there is no obligation to repay the obligation for delay according to the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation in this case, so compulsory execution based on the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation in this case shall not be allowed.

B. The grounds for objection in a lawsuit seeking exclusion of compulsory execution based on a final and conclusive judgment, etc. ought to arise after the closing of argument (Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). Since res judicata effect of a decision recommending reconciliation has arisen based on the time of final and conclusive judgment, the Supreme Court’s decision recommending reconciliation has become final and conclusive. Thus, the grounds for objection arising from the lawsuit seeking exclusion of compulsory execution