1. The Defendant’s decision on recommendations for the execution of the loan case No. 2014Gapo22425 against the Plaintiff was based on the Daegu District Court Decision.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an application for debate on loans of KRW 8,200,000 from the Defendant for the purchase of SM5 vehicles (hereinafter “instant application”) under the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. Under the instant loan agreement, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for loans with this Court 2014Gapo24425, and this court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”) on May 23, 2014, and became final and conclusive as it did not raise any objection after the notice of performance recommendation was served.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, since non-party C, a former wife, entered into the instant loan agreement with the defendant by stealing the plaintiff's name, the compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case shall be denied.

As to this, the defendant asserts that ① the application of this case was lawfully prepared with the plaintiff’s consent, ② even if it is not so, the plaintiff bears the responsibility of acting as an expression agent in excess of the authority to award the power of representation, ③ even if the application of this case was forged by C, the plaintiff is liable for damages as he participated in tort by allowing the use of various documents, seal imprints, etc. necessary for the application of loan to Nonparty B, and ④ the plaintiff's non-performance objection against the performance recommendation was ratified as an incomplete legal act.

3. The decision on performance recommendation does not take place even after the final and conclusive decision has become final and conclusive, and thus, the lawsuit to raise an objection does not apply to the restriction in accordance with the time limit of res judicata. Therefore, the hearing of the objection suit is in question.