1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant served from May 1, 2013 to December 26, 2013 in D (hereinafter “instant enterprise”).

B. As the Defendant was unable to receive wages, etc. during the above service period, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and A claiming wages, etc. in this court (2014 Ghana 14789) by asserting that “the Plaintiff and A jointly operated the instant business entity” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant business entity”), and on September 17, 2014, the decision of performance recommendation against the Plaintiff was finalized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 15 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 5-7 of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that “The decision of performance recommendation shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment unless the defendant raises an objection within two weeks.” Meanwhile, Article 5-8(3) of the same Act provides that “An objection against a claim in respect of compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation shall not be subject to restrictions pursuant to the provisions of Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act [in a lawsuit seeking an objection against a claim established by a judgment, the grounds for the objection shall have occurred after the conclusion of pleadings (in cases of a lawsuit seeking an objection against a claim without holding any pleadings, after the judgment was rendered)].” Thus, in a lawsuit seeking objection against a final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, not only the grounds for extinguishing the claim after the decision of performance recommendation or preventing the exercise of the claim before the decision of performance recommendation, but also the failure or invalidation of the claim before

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da54999 Decided January 26, 2006, etc.). B.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff operated the business of this case jointly with A.

In full view of each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10, 12, and 20, the representative of the company of this case shall be A, and the defendant shall be introduced from the plaintiff, and this shall not apply.