1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment, and thus, it will accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. The plaintiff asserts that the effect of the decision on performance recommendation can not be asserted by the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff has a claim against the plaintiff, or even if the prescription has expired, the defendant of the lawsuit in this case becomes final and conclusive with respect to the lawsuit in this case, and since this has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, unless it is revoked by a retrial.

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does not raise an objection within a fixed period of time, a decision of rejection of objection, or an objection is withdrawn, the decision of execution recommendation shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment.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 assertion of objection against a claim for a decision on performance recommendation shall not be subject to the restriction pursuant to the above Civil Execution Act, since Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that the grounds for objection against a final and conclusive decision shall be limited to those arising after the pleadings have been concluded (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings, after the judgment is pronounced). Therefore

In light of this, the purport of the above provisions of the Trial of Small Claims Act is to recognize incidental effects such as executory power and legal requisite effects, excluding res judicata, among the effects of final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, and it does not recognize res judicata.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s ground that occurred before the decision on performance recommendation was made.