1. The Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation in the Suwon District Court case No. 2015Gaso19259 against the Plaintiff was based on the Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation.

In full view of the purport of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 5 million with the loans loans No. 2015da19259, and received a decision of performance recommendation as stated in the disposition on September 30, 2015. The decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited for payment of KRW 5 million with the principal and KRW 427,396, total of KRW 688,50, total of expenses for execution of compulsory auction by real estate, KRW 6,115,896 (U.S. District Court Decision 2015Da106777). According to the above facts of recognition, according to the above facts, all obligations based on the decision of performance recommendation were extinguished.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be denied only on the portion exceeding the amount, since he did not receive a substitute, transportation expenses, etc., which were incurred in receiving the above decision of execution recommendation.

However, a judgment on the cost of lawsuit cannot serve as the executive title of the claim for reimbursement of the cost of lawsuit, and the cost of lawsuit by the decision on the amount of cost of lawsuit does not affect the executory power of the judgment on the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da818, Oct. 12, 2005). The consolation money, etc. claimed by the defendant is not confirmed as the decision on performance recommendation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.