1. The defendant's decision of recommendation for execution of the loan case No. 2009Gau37079 against the plaintiff was made by the Daegu District Court for the plaintiff.

1. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming that the Plaintiff lent money from September 19, 2007 to November 21, 2007, as Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 2009Gau37079, and that the Plaintiff paid the total amount of the loan KRW 15,760,000 and delay damages therefor. The Plaintiff’s mother did not file an objection against the Defendant on December 11, 2009 with the notice of performance recommendation issued on May 27, 2010, and thus, the said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on June 11, 2010.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the decision on performance recommendation has become final and conclusive as well as res judicata takes place, and thus, a lawsuit seeking an objection to such decision does not apply to the restriction pursuant to the time limit of res judicata, and thus, in the hearing of the relevant lawsuit of demurrer, the determination of all the claims as stated in the decision on performance recommendation may be made with respect to the argument

I would like to say.

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit of demurrer, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not established in the lawsuit of demurrer, the defendant is liable to prove the cause

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). 3. Determination of the instant case: (a) it is insufficient to recognize the debtor as the Plaintiff solely on the sole basis of the description of the health account and evidence No. 15,760,000, supra; and (b) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution based on the defendant's decision of recommendation of execution of this case against the plaintiff.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.