1. Based on the Defendant’s Jeju District Court’s 2018Gaso8326 decision on recommendations for the payment of goods.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff supplied fishery products to the frequency of the Plaintiff’s operation from June 29, 2016 to July 25, 2016, and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 3,524,000 for the price.”

B. On July 3, 2018, the above court held that "the defendant (referring to the plaintiff in this case) shall pay 3,524,000 won to the plaintiff (referring to the defendant in this case) at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case to the day of complete payment" (hereinafter "the execution recommendation decision in this case").

A) The decision on the instant performance recommendation was made on July 26, 2018. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. In the event that a final and conclusive decision on performance recommendation has become final and conclusive, the grounds for the failure or invalidation of the decision on performance recommendation with respect to the claims that served as the grounds for the relevant decision on performance recommendation may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the decision on performance recommendation, and the burden of proof with respect to the grounds for the objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of sharing the burden of proof in general

Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a final decision on performance recommendation where the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim was not constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the fact of the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims the fact that the claim was invalid or extinguished as a false declaration of conspiracy or due to repayment, etc., the plaintiff is liable to prove such fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). The Plaintiff was supplied with fishery products from the Defendant by June 28, 2016, and thereafter did not have any transaction with the Defendant, and thereafter, the Plaintiff did not object to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.