1. The Defendant’s decision on recommendations for the Defendant’s extension of loans No. 2018Gaon 60627 against the Plaintiff is made.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 8, 2016, the Defendant remitted KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff’s account.

B. The Defendant asserted that he lent the above remittance amount to the Plaintiff and filed a lawsuit seeking payment of loans 20 million won and damages for delay with this Court Decision 2018Da6627, and the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation on January 26, 2018, which became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) Since the money deposited by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff is not a loan, but an investment money invested to the Plaintiff via the Plaintiff, the Defendant is not obligated to return it to the Plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant performance recommendation decision should be denied. 2) The Defendant lent the said loan to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff lent the said loan to C.

B. As the decision on performance recommendation does not take place even after the final and conclusive decision has become final and conclusive, the restriction is not applied to a lawsuit of demurrer pursuant to the time limit of res judicata. As such, in a lawsuit of demurrer, the determination of performance recommendation may be deliberated and determined on all the claims indicated in the decision on performance recommendation. In such a case, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim lies on the defendant in the lawsuit of objection.

The above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the money paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case cannot be permitted.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion