1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the Defendant’s claim against the Seoul Northern District Court 2015 Ghana47014.

1. On the premise, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the processing costs at this court. In the instant case, the Defendant received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant decision on performance recommendation”) with the effect that “the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff KRW 17,168,950 and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from June 26, 2015 to the date of delivery of a duplicate copy of the complaint, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”). The said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on December 5, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's filing of an objection on the grounds of the reasons before the decision on performance recommendation of this case becomes final and conclusive is unlawful as it goes against the res judicata.

Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that when the defendant fails to file an objection within a fixed period of time, the decision of rejection of an objection becomes final and conclusive, or the objection is withdrawn, the decision of performance recommendation shall have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment.

However, unlike Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, which limits the grounds for objection to a final and conclusive judgment to be arising after the pleadings have been closed (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings, after a judgment is pronounced), Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that any objection to a request for a decision on performance recommendation shall not be subject to the restriction pursuant to the above Civil Execution Act. Therefore, the grounds arising prior to the said decision on performance recommendation may also be asserted in a lawsuit for objection to

In light of this, the purport of the 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.