1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of non-permission of compulsory execution.

1. Basic facts

A. From January 3, 2009 to January 19, 2009, the Defendant lent KRW 2,320,880 to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). B.

With respect to the instant loan, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant the remainder of KRW 486,880 on January 23, 2009, and February 23, 2009.

C. On February 20, 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the instant loan with the Suwon District Court, U.S. District Court Decision 2009Da42666, and on February 20, 2009, the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 1, 2009 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the instant decision of performance recommendation”) with respect to KRW 2,320,880 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 1, 2009 to the date of full payment.”

On the other hand, the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 1,80,000,000 on March 25, 2009, and KRW 1,800,000 on May 25, 2009, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 2 and 16 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 1,80,000,000 on March 25, 2009 and KRW 1,800,000 on May 25, 2009, and partly repaid the instant loan. As such, compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of the instant case ought to be rejected within the scope of the said decision.

B. On March 12, 2009, the Defendant separately lent KRW 2,000,000 to the Plaintiff on March 12, 2009, other than the instant loan. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,800,000 to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the loan as above on March 12, 2009. Thus, the instant loan was not repaid at all.

3. As to the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, the grounds arising prior to the decision can also be asserted in the lawsuit of objection. We examine whether KRW 1,800,000 paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is appropriated for the loan of this case.

The defendant asserted that on March 12, 2009, the plaintiff lent KRW 2,000,000 to the plaintiff separately, but it can support this.