1. The Defendant’s loan execution against the Plaintiff is the Suwon District Court 2018Gapo-si Court 213182.

Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that when the defendant fails to file an objection within a specified period, or the decision of rejection of an objection becomes final and conclusive, or the objection is withdrawn, the decision of performance recommendation shall have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment. However, contrary to Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that the assertion of objection against a request for a final and conclusive judgment shall not be subject to any restriction under the above Civil Execution Act as to a claim for objection against a decision of performance recommendation, contrary to Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, which limits the grounds for objection against a final and conclusive judgment to be arising after the closure of pleadings (in the case

In light of the above, the purport of the provisions of the Trial of Small Claims Act is to recognize only the incidental effects such as executory power and legal requisite effects, which are the remaining effects except res judicata, among the effects of a final and conclusive judgment on a final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, and it is not to recognize res judicata (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009). Therefore, in cases where the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not have a claim in a lawsuit claiming objection against the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, the defendant is liable to prove

On the other hand, on October 4, 2018, the Defendant received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation”) from the Plaintiff from the Suwon District Court, the Suwon District Court 2018Gapo213182, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time, and the Defendant, as the cause of the claim, is the auditor of C (hereinafter “C”) and the Plaintiff in the relationship with D, the representative director of C, and vice-party (hereinafter “C”), thereby taking over the Defendant by violating the fiduciary duty.