1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for rent of KRW 6160,00 and damages for delay against the Plaintiff, stating that “The Defendant supplied the Plaintiff’s construction machinery equivalent to KRW 6160,000 for eight (8) days from September 19, 2017 to September 28, 2017, at the disposal site of D located in Yan-gun (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On November 15, 2017, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation as stated by the Defendant’s above claim (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”), and the said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on December 2, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant had no supply of construction machinery from the Defendant, whereas the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff supplied construction machinery for eight days from September 19, 2017 to August 28 of the same month.

3. Although the decision on performance recommendation has become final and conclusive and the res judicata does not take place, the lawsuit to raise an objection is not subject to the restriction pursuant to the time limitation of res judicata. Therefore, in the hearing of the lawsuit to raise an objection, the hearing may deliberate and determine all the claims indicated in the decision on performance recommendation. In such a case, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim shall be deemed to be the defendant in the lawsuit to raise an objection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health care team, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the entire statement and pleading as to the instant case, namely, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with F Co., Ltd., a company substantially operated by E regarding waste disposal work at the instant site, and the period during which the Defendant supplied construction machinery to the Plaintiff.