1. The Defendant’s claim for the price of goods against the Plaintiff is filed with the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Da4155.

1. The Defendant’s determination on the cause of the claim filed an application against the Plaintiff for a decision on performance recommendation for goods purchase price claim of the Suwon District Court KRW 2014Gadan4155, which became final and conclusive due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an objection thereto, does not conflict between the parties.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, at the time of the conclusion of the contract with Nonparty C, not the Defendant, it concluded a contract for the entire construction work including the signboard construction work with Nonparty C, and agreed to the effect that it would pay the entire construction cost and agreed to that effect, compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation as to the payment of the construction cost should be denied. However, the Defendant, not C, directly entered into the contract with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 13,585,200, which is a part of the construction cost, and thus, the said money should be paid in accordance with the decision on performance recommendation.

Therefore, since the decision on performance recommendation is final and conclusive and conclusive, and thus a lawsuit to raise an objection does not apply to a lawsuit for objection, the grounds arising prior to the decision on performance recommendation can also be asserted in a lawsuit for objection against the claim, as such, inasmuch as the said decision does not apply to the time limit of res judicata.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190 Decided May 14, 2009). However, according to the statement of evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the above defendant C, as to the whole artificial park construction including the signboard construction of the defendant's assertion, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having made an agreement by fully paying the construction cost and making the agreement. Furthermore, in full view of the whole purport of arguments in each statement of evidence No. 6, in the content certification that the defendant voluntarily sent, the defendant himself explained that "The President of the Neomaa president" was not able to obtain approval since the representative of A (the plaintiff) was not able to pay the price."