1. The Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation is based on the decision of performance recommendation as to December 26, 2013 the Suwon District Court rendered to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C, which the Plaintiff’s husband, operated D (hereinafter “D”) under the Plaintiff’s name, and the Defendant transferred KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff’s account on November 25, 201 while working as D’s employee.

B. On December 26, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the above KRW 5 million was a loan, and filed a lawsuit for a loan claim (hereinafter “related case”) with this court No. 2013Gau49482, and on December 26, 2013, the Defendant received a decision of performance recommendation with the purport that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 5 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.” The decision of performance recommendation was finalized as it is, depending on the fact that the Plaintiff did not raise an objection.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was a member of D, and the representative director of D’s corporate register was the Plaintiff, but the actual operator was the Plaintiff’s husband, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant lent KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s account just because the Defendant transferred the Plaintiff KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff’s account. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation against the Plaintiff should be denied.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.