1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for unjust enrichment claim against the Plaintiff is based on the Gwangju District Court 2016Gaso2160.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant share No. 101 of the first floor of the aggregate building above Gwangju Dong-gu C and D site as a friendship, and among them, the defendant's share is 4/34.

B. As the manager of the above building, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty E (F) among the above Nos. 101-1 (hereinafter referred to as “the building of this case”), and received KRW 79,800,000 on a monthly basis between January 13, 2006 and September 22, 2007 at KRW 3,80,000.

C. The Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 9,388,235 equivalent to the Defendant’s share 4/34 out of 79,800,000, received a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment from this court to the effect that the Plaintiff filed a claim for unjust enrichment against the said money and damages for delay. This court rendered a decision of performance recommendation with the same content, and the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on January 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If the Defendant offsets the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff by using KRW 19,800,000 as the automatic claim against the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant would rather pay the Plaintiff money, and thus, it cannot be allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case.

B. 1) In full view of the purport of Gap evidence and the entire pleadings, the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff as interest rate of 15% on May 15, 2005 and 4,000,000 won on August 2, 2006, and the defendant decided to deduct from the defendant's share out of the rent for the building of this case until the above principal and interest are fully paid. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant decided to deduct from the defendant's share until the above principal and interest are fully paid. According to the above facts of recognition, there is no money that the defendant would receive from the plaintiff if the claim against the plaintiff is offset from the equal amount of the claim between the original defendant, so compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case cannot be permitted since the defendant's claim against the plaintiff is no longer available. 2) In this regard, the defendant's loans stated in Gap evidence 3 against the plaintiff.