1. The Defendant’s recommendations for the execution of the loan case against the Plaintiff are based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gaso86.

1. On March 18, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a loan of KRW 1.5 million with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da86086, and the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation ordering the Plaintiff to pay the said claim amount (hereinafter “decision of performance recommendation”). The fact that the instant decision of performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff on March 23, 2016, and that the final decision on April 7, 2016 became final and conclusive may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the respective statements in subparagraphs 1 and 6.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion does not lend money to the defendant, so compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case shall be dismissed.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the facts that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 770,000,000 from the Defendant, and KRW 1470,000,00,000 from the Defendant, respectively, in each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 (each of the above receipts is alleged to have been forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the above receipts, and rather, according to the results of written appraisal by appraiser C and D, each of the Plaintiff stated the Plaintiff’s name recognized as the Plaintiff’s pen, and thus, each of them is presumed to have been established. (2) The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 400,00,00 out of the above loans to E account is either disputed between the parties or is recognized by the statement in the

3) According to the facts of the above recognition, the Plaintiff calculated the amount of KRW 1,77,00,000 (i.e., KRW 1470,00 won - KRW 400,000,000, and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until May 15, 2018, which is the date of the judgment of this case, determined that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform from March 24, 2016, the following day of the decision of this case to the date of full payment.