1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for construction cost (the claimed amount: KRW 6,300,000; hereinafter “instant related lawsuit”) under the Suwon District Court Decision 2013Da69064 on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to receive part of the construction cost as interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the Suwon District Court C1, Suwon District Court (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).

B. On April 17, 2014, in the instant lawsuit related thereto, a ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”) was issued on April 17, 2014 that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant until May 31, 2014,” and the same year.

5. 16. The above decision was finalized.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, substantial facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, as the defendant raised a separate suit by causing a lot of damages to the plaintiff, such as taking the costs of electrical transit by the defendant, and consented to the decision of recommending the settlement of this case due to the error in the calculation at the time, compulsory execution based on the decision of recommending the settlement of this case should be denied.

On the other hand, since the final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation has the same effect as a judicial compromise and has res judicata effect, a lawsuit of demurrer may be brought only when there exist grounds to deem that a claim, such as reimbursement, agreement of non-execution, etc., was extinguished after the decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive. Even if the debtor was unable to make any assertion in the litigation proceedings because he did not know the occurrence of the dispute without negligence, the grounds arising prior thereto cannot be asserted in the lawsuit of objection because it is excluded by res judicata effect of the decision of recommending reconciliation. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff are the grounds that the claim had already been extinguished after the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case, and therefore, the grounds for objection cannot be the grounds for objection.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.