A. On March 8, 2006, the Defendant deposited KRW 800,000 into the Busan National Agricultural Bank Account established under the name of the Plaintiff.

B. As above, with respect to the payment of KRW 800,000, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as the Gwangju District Court 2008Gaso41689, and accordingly, on August 1, 2008, “The Defendant (A, the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay 90,000 won to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff of this case and the Defendant of this case) with 5% per annum from March 19, 2006 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”). The decision on performance recommendation was issued and confirmed on August 1, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the above debt was fully extinguished by the repayment of the amount equivalent to the debt based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case under the agreement with the defendant, and the defendant asserted that there exists the debt owed to the plaintiff and claimed that it exists.

B. 1) According to the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged. (A) The Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff as embezzlement in relation to deposit of KRW 800,000 with the Busan National Agricultural Bank account opened in the name of the Plaintiff on March 8, 2006, but the Defendant was issued a disposition of suspicion as not to acknowledge any criminal charges against the Plaintiff as a result of the investigation.

B) During the investigation process, the Plaintiff: (a) opened a bank account under the Plaintiff’s name; and (b) transferred KRW 800,000 to the Defendant; and (c) recognized that the Plaintiff was erroneous by lending the Plaintiff’s identification card to C; and (b) transferred KRW 700,000 to the bank account under the Defendant’s understanding on November 20, 2006; and (c) even if the Defendant received a refund of KRW 700,000 as above, it again paid KRW 90,00 to the Plaintiff.