1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the case No. 2016 Ghana 1752 against the Plaintiff was based on the Goyang-gu District Court Decision.

1. In the case of this Court No. 2016 Ghana1752 against the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation to the Defendant to pay KRW 13,324,437 and delay damages on February 16, 2016 was reached around February 16, 2016, which became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant performance recommendation decision,” and the above claimed amount is the card price of this case). The grounds for the instant performance recommendation decision are as follows.

(The following credit card is referred to as “the instant credit card.” The Plaintiff loaned the credit card to the Defendant, and the Defendant used the credit card price from April 2014 to May 2015. The Defendant subrogated for this, but the Plaintiff did not pay the credit card price.

On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 400,900 from the bank account, the Plaintiff’s wife, to the Defendant’s bank account. From April 2014 to May 2015, the Defendant paid the card price.

【Ground for Recognition: Each entry of Gap, Eul, 1 to 3】

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff entered the plaintiff's household factory and entered the defendant's family factory and paid 2 million won overdue rent to the defendant. The defendant paid 1.5 million won as investment money.

The Defendant’s assertion that the instant card price is a loan is false, since the Plaintiff and the Defendant are operating expenses for vehicle maintenance, material cost, etc. used while operating a household factory.

From February 2014, the project was jointly conducted.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff complained of economic difficulties and lent credit cards, and that it is not jointly used in operating a household factory, but did not enter into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff.

From July 2014, the defendant operated the household business independently.

3. The plaintiff does not have any dispute over the fact that money has been received between the judgment parties.