1. The Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation in Suwon District Court 2019Gau345855 case against the Plaintiff was based on the Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is serving as the employee of the Defendant from May 2008.

The retirement was made at the end of December 2013.

B. Around July 14, 2011, the Defendant lent KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”), and the Defendant received a recommendation of performance from the said court on December 6, 2019, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 20,000 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from November 21, 2019 to the delivery date of the instant complaint,” and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties asserted 1) Around the time of the Plaintiff’s retirement, the Plaintiff owned approximately KRW 20 million retirement allowance claims against the Defendant, but around that time, the Plaintiff agreed to offset the Defendant’s retirement allowance claim and the instant loan claim. Thus, the said loan was extinguished by the offset agreement. Even if there was no such offset agreement, the Plaintiff’s claim for the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance as a preparatory document dated September 21, 2020 shall offset the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim against the instant loan claim. Therefore, as the instant loan claim was extinguished by the said offset, compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of the instant case should be denied. (2) Since Defendant paid Defendant paid KRW 7,636,706 to the Plaintiff on March 201 as an interim settlement of accounts for retirement allowance, and thereafter, the Plaintiff did not hold the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim since the Plaintiff paid the Defendant’s monthly retirement allowance as its officers.

Even if the plaintiff's retirement allowance claim is recognized, the defendant did not agree to offset the plaintiff's retirement allowance claim against the loan claim of this case, and the above retirement allowance.