1. The Daejeon District Court's red support 2016 Ghana 2080 against the Plaintiff of the Defendants rendered recommendations for the execution of the purchase price of goods.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff and D jointly engaged in the wedding business and filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price of goods with this court 2016 Ghana2080 against the Plaintiff and D, and this court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) as of May 17, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff was served on August 16, 2016 on the instant recommendation decision, and the instant recommendation decision became final and conclusive on August 30, 2016, by raising an objection on August 31, 2016, the period of filing an objection.

C. D, on May 4, 2012, registered a wedding business in the name of “F” in Hongsung-gun E, Hongsung-gun, but closed the wedding business on December 29, 2014. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a registration of a wedding business in the same trade name at the same place on the same date and closed the business on June 13, 2015.

On or after December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff registered the business of the wedding business, and after December 29, 2014, paid all the amount of goods related to the part that the Plaintiff traded with the Defendants

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers if any) and the response to each order to submit financial transaction information to the NH Nonghyup Bank and the NH Nonghyup branch of the Seogsan Agricultural Cooperative, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of the response to each order to submit financial transaction information

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not operate the wedding business with D and the wedding business, and the Plaintiff independently operated the wedding hall business after its business registration. Since the Plaintiff paid the price for the goods traded with the Defendants from that time, compulsory execution based on the decision on the instant performance recommendation made by the Defendants against the Plaintiff should be denied.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants had operated the wedding business as D and D, and thus, the Defendants are also liable to pay the purchase-price for the goods to the Defendants. Even if the Plaintiff did not operate the wedding business with D, the Plaintiff acquired the wedding business from D and continued to use the business name.