1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 11, 2013, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff regarding C stone Corporation located in B, North Korea, and completed the construction on or around April 2013, 2013, but only received KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff and did not receive the remainder of the construction payment. On January 14, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the construction payment against the Plaintiff as the Jeonju District Court 2015No2375.

B. On January 15, 2015, the Jeonju District Court rendered a decision to recommend execution to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 48,60,000 as claimed by the Defendant (the Defendant sought KRW 48,60,000 at the time, but the Defendant claimed KRW 4860,000 due to any clerical error) and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the above complaint to the day of full payment, and the said decision to recommend performance became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) is a fact that the plaintiff prepared a contract with the non-party D, but there is no means to conclude a contract with the defendant, so compulsory execution based on the defendant's decision of performance recommendation should be rejected.

(2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not have a business registration certificate at the time, concluded the above subcontract with the plaintiff under the name of the non-party D, who had no business registration certificate, and the plaintiff had already been aware of it, and part of the construction price had already been paid directly

B. The determination of performance recommendation error and the determination of performance recommendation are final and conclusive, and as such, res judicata does not take place, the litigation to raise an objection is not subject to the restriction pursuant to the time limit of res judicata, and thus, the hearing of the objection may deliberate and decide on all the claims as stated in the decision of performance recommendation.

I would like to say.

On the other hand, the objection is raised.