1. The Defendant’s decision on the recommendation of performance for the loan case (Seoul Southern District Court 2013 Ghana 160286) against the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as follows.

On December 9, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim against the Seoul Southern District Court 201 Ghana 160286, and the court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) on April 10, 2014 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant an amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”). The said decision became final and conclusive on July 19, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to submit a written objection within the period upon receiving the notice of the decision on performance recommendation of this case.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. On March 27, 2011, the Defendant asserted that on November 9, 2013, he/she joined the Plaintiff’s business on March 27, 201, and retired from the Plaintiff on November 9, 201, and that on May 21, 2011 through October 20, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned part of the monthly wage upon the Plaintiff’s strong request, but did not receive a total of KRW 5,012,000. 2), the Plaintiff did not borrow money to the Defendant.

B. 1) Determination 1) Since the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation does not take place even if res judicata has become final and conclusive, the restriction is not applicable to a lawsuit seeking an objection against it pursuant to the time limit of res judicata (Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). In a lawsuit seeking the objection, it may be deliberated and determined as to all the claims indicated in the decision of performance recommendation. In this case, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim lies in the obligee, i.e., the obligee, and the “Defendant” in the lawsuit claiming the objection, which bears the burden of proving that the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff, and the documents submitted by the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s metro, are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant.