1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff on January 28, 2015 by the Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Na5343 decided January 28, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 22, 201, the Defendant received a loan from the Dobong Credit Cooperative and lent KRW 8,000 to the Plaintiff on November 22, 2011, but the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Plaintiff under the Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Ga5343, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to fully repay the principal and interest of the loan, unlike the promise, and the Plaintiff repaid the principal and interest of the loan amounting to KRW 9,686,561 on February 5, 2014.

B. On January 28, 2015, the Jeonju District Court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay to the Defendant 9,686,561 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the above complaint to the day of full payment. The said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The party's assertion (1) The person who borrowed the above KRW 8,00,000 from the defendant's assertion is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's mother C. The plaintiff merely received the above KRW 8,00,000 from the plaintiff's account, but is not the borrower. Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation against the plaintiff should be denied.

(2) The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff borrowed the above 8,000,000 won from the defendant.

B. The determination of performance recommendation error and the determination of performance recommendation are final and conclusive, and as such, res judicata does not take place, the litigation to raise an objection is not subject to the restriction pursuant to the time limit of res judicata, and thus, the hearing of the objection may deliberate and decide on all the claims as stated in the decision of performance recommendation.

I would like to say.

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit of demurrer, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not established in the lawsuit of demurrer, the defendant is liable to prove the cause

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 200