1. The Defendant’s request for a loan to the Plaintiff is made by the Jeonju District Court, Jeonju District Court, 2017Gaso674.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2007, the deceased on December 31, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming loans against the Plaintiff, who is the deceased’s heir B, under the Jeonju District Court 2017Gaso674, Gun Court in charge of the Dongan District Court.

On April 14, 2017, the above court rendered a decision of performance recommendation with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay 10,058,784 won and damages for delay to the Defendant, and the above decision became final and conclusive.

B. On the other hand, on July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff reported to the Jeonju District Court's branch court's branch court's 2008Ra215, and the above court accepted the above report on July 4, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 5-7(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that when the defendant does not raise an objection within a fixed period of time, a decision of rejection of an objection, or an objection is withdrawn, the decision of performance recommendation shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment.

However, unlike Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, where the grounds for objection against a final and conclusive judgment are limited to those 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 the grounds for objection against a request for a decision on performance recommendation shall not be restricted pursuant to the above Civil Execution Act. Thus, the grounds arising prior to the decision on performance recommendation may also be asserted in a lawsuit for objection against a

According to the above legal principles and the above facts, the plaintiff's report of the inheritance limited recognition that became final and conclusive after the adjudication was accepted is a ground for objection to the claim.

However, the qualified acceptance does not dismiss the heir's debt itself, and the heir's exercise of the defendant's claim indicated in the decision of performance recommendation is limited to its liability.