1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Incheon District Court’s decision on September 27, 2017 (2017 Ghana475783).

1. On September 16, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant had a claim for a loan amounting to KRW 3,600,000 against the Plaintiff by the Incheon District Court Decision 2017Da475783, supra, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the above loan and the damages for delay. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation made on September 27, 2017 by this Court was served on the Plaintiff on October 11, 2017, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 26, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as the "decision on the execution recommendation of this case"). 【The ground for recognition of the performance recommendation of this case: the fact that there is no dispute, the entry of evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the significant fact in this court, and the purport of the whole

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that "the plaintiff's summary of this case's execution recommendation decision shall not constitute a compulsory execution based on the above execution recommendation decision since there is no loan claim against the plaintiff who served as the basis of the defendant's execution recommendation decision."

B. Determination 1) Since a final and conclusive decision on performance recommendation does not take place even if res judicata has become final and conclusive, and thus a lawsuit seeking an objection thereto does not apply to a lawsuit seeking an objection, the grounds arising prior to such decision may also be asserted in a lawsuit seeking objection as to the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009). Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking objection, the burden of proving the grounds for objection in a lawsuit seeking objection shall be in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, where the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s claim was not established, the Defendant is liable to prove the grounds for objection to the Defendant’s claim) in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence A No. 12, and the Defendant’s entire purport of the pleading as to the Plaintiff’s account can be acknowledged as the fact that each remitted KRW 3,500,000,000 on January 14, 2014.

However, the circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 12, are also considered.