1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Busan District Court 2016Kadan3094.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 2016, the Defendant filed an order for payment of KRW 30,135,915 for the supply of construction materials against the Plaintiff (Jansan District Court 2016 tea4078) and issued a payment order from the above court on April 27, 2016, but the Plaintiff filed an objection on May 12, 2016 and filed a lawsuit (Jansan District Court 2016Da30094, hereinafter referred to as “prior lawsuit”).

B. As of August 10, 2016, Busan District Court rendered a ruling to recommend reconciliation that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 13,965,315 to the Defendant until September 9, 2016. If the Plaintiff fails to pay the above amount by the payment date, the Plaintiff shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the date following the date of payment to the date of full payment (hereinafter “decision to recommend reconciliation of this case”). The above ruling to recommend reconciliation was finalized on the 27th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, entry of Eul evidence No. 4-1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff paid all the material cost that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant; (b) however, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) subcontracted by the Plaintiff did not pay the material cost that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant submitted forged evidence in the prior suit procedure, and accordingly, the above court decided to recommend reconciliation and confirmed the ruling of recommending reconciliation in this case.

Therefore, since the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case was made by the defendant's deception, compulsory execution based on the decision should be rejected.

② Even if it is not so, the Plaintiff received a proposal from the Defendant to fully exempt the remainder of the obligation based on the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case, and repaid KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant on December 22, 2017, and thus, the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case is based on the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case.