1. The defendant's decision of performance recommendation made on September 5, 2006 by Jeonju District Court 2006Gau701 case against the plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B around June 5, 2002, around June 5, 2002, concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant on a set of KRW 7,700,000 for loans, 36 months for loans, and 10% for installment financing loans.
B. B died on August 20, 2002, and his heir is the Plaintiff, the spouse, and C, D, and E.
C. Around October 9, 2002, F, a fraudulent act in B, prepared an application for exchange theory with the content that “F, a joint and several surety B, an applicant for exchange, an application amount of F, 7,630,000 won, 36 months during the exchange period, interest rate of 19%, 26% for delay damages,” and submitted it to the Defendant.
At that time, the defendant was aware of the fact that F prepared an application in the name of B where F died.
In Jeonju District Court Decision 2006Gau7001, the Defendant filed a claim against the inheritor B, including the Plaintiff, for the payment based on the substitutional theory of this case. On September 5, 2006, the decision of performance recommendation ordering the Plaintiff, etc. to pay the substitutional loan of this case (hereinafter “the decision of performance recommendation of this case”).
On September 7, 2006, the plaintiff did not object to the decision of performance recommendation of this case, and the decision of performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive on September 22, 2006 between the defendant and the plaintiff.
E. According to the instant performance recommendation decision in Jeonju District Court Decision 2014TTT 667, the Defendant filed an application for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff with the amount of KRW 11,118,337, based on the performance recommendation decision of this case. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant rendered a final decision to seize and collect the Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining agricultural cooperatives, etc.
On July 15, 2014, the Defendant collected KRW 3,473,137 from the Namwon Agricultural Cooperative on July 15, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The decision of execution recommendation of this case as to the cause of claim is based on the premise that the part B among the theory of replacement of this case is valid.