1. On September 13, 2016, the Defendant’s claim for collection amount against the Plaintiff was filed with the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2016 Ghana85924.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the wage claim against the Plaintiff by Seoul Southern District Court 2015TTT 103875 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party”). The original copy of the decision was served on the Plaintiff on December 31, 2015.

B. On September 13, 2016, the Defendant filed a suit against the Plaintiff for the claim for collection amount under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2016 Ghana85924, and rendered a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision of performance recommendation”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 13,741,940 and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint was served to the day of full payment.” Around September 22, 2016, the instant decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection after receiving the original copy of the decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that, since the non-party did not have a labor contract with the plaintiff, there is no claim for benefits against the plaintiff of the non-party, compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case should be denied.

The defendant asserts that since the non-party entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff and provided labor to the plaintiff, the right to claim the decision of performance recommendation of this case exists.

B. The Nonparty’s written evidence Nos. 3 and 1 and 2 regarding whether the Nonparty’s wage claim against the Plaintiff exists is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Nonparty entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the claims indicated in the decision on performance recommendation of this case exist, compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case should be rejected.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.