1. The Defendant’s final decision on performance recommendation to the Plaintiff of the Incheon District Court 2016 Ghana 117639 on the purchase price of goods.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a person engaged in the wholesale and retail business of fishery products under the trade name of "C", and the plaintiff is a person who operates a restaurant under the trade name of "D".

B. On January 23, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim of the price for fishery products goods under Incheon District Court 2016 Ghana 117639, and the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount under paragraph (1) (the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the delivery of the KRW 7,89,000 and the copy of the complaint therefor to the day of full payment)” was “The decision on performance recommendation of this case was finalized on February 10, 2017.”

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not order the Defendant to supply fishery products, and only was supplied with fishery products by ordering E. Nevertheless, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the price for the goods, and the Plaintiff became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff failed to submit a written objection or a written response within the statutory deadline. As such, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s decision on the instant performance recommendation against the Plaintiff should be denied. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant provided fishery products to E was supplied to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 7,899,000 for the goods of fishery products and delay damages therefor. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s decision on the instant recommendation of execution should be allowed.

B. The defendant, who is the subject of the decision of execution recommendation of this case, bears the burden of proving the existence of the fishery product price claim against the plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is that of the plaintiff according to the plaintiff's order.