1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Although the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to supply 125,346,210 won in total from January 28, 2018 to May 7, 2019, the Defendant asserted that only 122,265,710 won was paid by the Plaintiff until September 30, 2019, and that the Plaintiff did not receive 3,080,50 won in remainder, and that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the payment of 3,080,50 won in total and delay damages.

B. On June 4, 2020, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that "the plaintiff shall pay 3,080,000 won to the defendant by July 15, 2020. In the event that the plaintiff delays the payment of the above amount, the defendant shall pay the unpaid amount to the defendant plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the day following the above payment date to the day of full payment. The defendant shall waive the remainder of claims." The above ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as "the ruling of recommending reconciliation in this case") became final and conclusive as it is because the plaintiff and the defendant did not raise any objection despite being served with the above ruling of recommending reconciliation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff received goods equivalent to KRW 3,080,50 from the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, there is no obligation for the Plaintiff to repay the goods price obligations according to the decision of recommending the settlement of this case, so compulsory execution based on the decision of recommending the settlement of this case is not permissible.

B. The grounds for objection in a lawsuit seeking exclusion of compulsory execution based on a final and conclusive judgment, etc. ought to arise after the closing of argument (Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). Since res judicata effect of a decision recommending reconciliation has arisen as of the time of final and conclusive conclusion (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da2558, May 10, 2012), the decision recommending reconciliation is relevant.