1. On April 26, 2013, the Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, Seoul District Court, 2013Gais 8131, the Defendant’s collection money case against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2013, the Defendant issued a written decision of acceptance (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the claim amounting to KRW 12,898,276, out of the claim for construction work under the construction work contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) against the Plaintiff based on an executory exemplification of the judgment in the case of construction work cost case No. 2013, 18872, the Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, Seoul District Court, Kimcheon-si, 2012, 1872, against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”). The instant collection order was served on the Plaintiff on April 24, 2013, and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. According to the collection order of this case, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff under the Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, 2013Gapo-si, Seoul District Court, 2013, purporting that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 12,898,276 won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from the next day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment” (hereinafter “the claim for collection of this case”). On April 26, 2013, the above court made a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision of performance recommendation of this case”).

C. On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff was served with a certified copy of the instant decision on performance recommendation, and the instant decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on May 17, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As the decision on performance recommendation does not take place even after the final and conclusive decision has become final and conclusive, the restriction is not applied to a lawsuit seeking an objection against it based on the time limit of res judicata (Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). Accordingly, in a lawsuit seeking the objection, all of the decisions on performance recommendation are written.