1. The decision of performance recommendation made against the defendant on July 16, 2004 by the Jeonju District Court of U.S. District for the plaintiff 2004 Ghana118.

In light of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant brought an action against the plaintiff and Eul seeking payment of KRW 15,000,000 and damages for delay against the plaintiff and Eul by the Jeonju District Court Decision 2004Gada118. The above court made a decision on performance recommendation on July 16, 2004 (hereinafter "the decision on performance recommendation of this case") and delivered the above decision to the plaintiff on July 26, 2004, and the same year.

8. The fact that the part against the plaintiff in the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive among the decisions on performance recommendation of this case, and the defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the decision on performance recommendation of this case, applied for the seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's deposit claims against the Republic of Korea, Jeonbuk Bank, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and non-resident agricultural cooperatives, respectively. The above court issued a seizure and collection order on October 18, 2004, and the plaintiff, the defendant, C, and D issued a seizure and collection order on May 17, 2005, and on May 17, 2005, with respect to the case 2004, Jeonju District Court 2004Gari118, the plaintiff, C, and D jointly and severally paid KRW 8,50,000,000 to the defendant, and accordingly, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having paid the amount of the lawsuit to the defendant on May 20, 2004.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the transferred money upon the decision of execution recommendation of this case to the Defendant has ceased to exist in full due to repayment, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case cannot be permitted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.