1. On April 23, 2015, the Jeonju District Court of the Seoul District Court of the Republic of Korea (Seoul District Court of the Republic of Korea) for the Defendant’s Plaintiff, the 2015 Ghana649.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings);

A. On April 23, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Gaso649, the Seoul District Court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”), and the instant decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive on June 10, 2015.

B. The ground for claiming the above unjust enrichment was that “the Defendant lent KRW 18 million to the non-party deceased as security the right to claim the return of the commercial property deposit against the plaintiff by the non-party deceased (hereinafter “the non-party deceased”). The Plaintiff, as part of the right to claim the return of the commercial property deposit against the plaintiff by the non-party deceased, should pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 18 million and damages for delay.”

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues that, in borrowing KRW 18 million from the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not know of the borrowing of the deceased’s debt, and that the Plaintiff did not promise to return KRW 18 million to the Defendant as part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Nonparty, as well as to prepare a confirmation document.

B. 1) The decision on performance recommendation does not take place even if the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive, and thus, it does not apply to the lawsuit of demurrer pursuant to the time limit of res judicata (Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). In a lawsuit of objection, the court may deliberate and determine all the claims indicated in the decision on performance recommendation. In this case, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim lies on the obligee, namely, on the part of the obligee, i.e., on the part of the obligee, i., on the part of the claim objection, i.e., on the part of the obligee, i., on the part of the obligee, i.e., on the part of the Nonparty’s 18 million won loan from