1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015 Ghana41535 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff supplied meat, etc. to the Dcafeteria located in Gangnam-gu Seoul operated by the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court 2015 Ghana41535 against the Plaintiff.

B. On July 24, 2015, the foregoing court made a decision on performance recommendation that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the decision on performance recommendation to the day of full payment,” and that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the rate of 6,338,880 won per annum,” which became final and conclusive on August 13, 201

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a lawsuit seeking objection against a final decision on performance recommendation, not only the grounds for extinguishing a claim after the decision on performance recommendation or preventing the exercise of a claim, but also the failure or invalidation of a claim before the decision on performance recommendation is also the grounds for objection (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da54999, Jan. 26, 2006). In this case, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of a claim shall be borne by the creditor, i.e., the defendant in a lawsuit seeking objection.

B. In the instant case, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant supplied meat, etc. to the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant on the sole basis of the statement of health class A and No. 1, and there is no evidence to

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s goods payment obligation against the Defendant is not recognized, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case cannot be permitted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable.