1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation in the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch case No. 2015 Ghana54317 was based on the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business of main supplies, and the Plaintiff is a person who operated a restaurant in the first floor of Gunsan-si with a trade name.

B. From June 2011 to December 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with the Jeonju District Court No. 2015Gau54317, Nov. 3, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 4,497,500 for the goods, even though the Defendant supplied the said goods to the Plaintiff in relation to the said restaurant.

C. On November 13, 2015, the foregoing court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) with the content that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant KRW 4,497,500 and damages for delay of 15% per annum thereof,” as claimed by the Defendant, and the decision on performance recommendation of this case was finalized on December 3, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that when the defendant does not raise an objection within a fixed period of time, the decision of rejection of an objection becomes final and conclusive, or the objection is withdrawn, the decision of performance recommendation shall have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment.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, unlike Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that any objection against a request for a final and conclusive judgment shall not be restricted pursuant to the above Civil Execution Act with respect to a claim for objection against a decision on performance recommendation, contrary to Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act, which limits the grounds for objection against a final and conclusive judgment to be arising after the pleadings have been concluded (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009). Therefore, the right to claim prior to the decision of performance recommendation was not established.