대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred totaling KRW 11,00,000,000 to the Defendant’s name account, KRW 4,000,000 on February 24, 2009, KRW 3,000,00 on April 14, 2009, and KRW 11,000,000 on September 15, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant money”) is no dispute between the parties.
2. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against the defendant's husband and the co-defendant C (hereinafter "C") of the first instance court against the defendant's husband and the co-defendant C of the first instance court (hereinafter "C"), and partly rendered a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant. In addition, the defendant received a final and conclusive judgment against the defendant by filing a loan claim lawsuit against the defendant 201Kadan6362, which was rendered against the defendant. In addition, since the plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against the defendant 2014Gada791, the Daegu District Court in the Daegu District Court in the Daegu District Court in 2014, and then withdrawn the lawsuit against the defendant, the lawsuit in this case is deemed to fall under a double lawsuit
B. Determination of the foregoing Daegu District Court Decision 2010Kadan5959 and the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed to have been identical to each other. The instant cases involving the foregoing Daegu District Court Decision 2010Kadan599 and its support 201Kadan6362 and the foregoing Daegu District Court Decision 2014Gau791 were all final and conclusive cases, and the lawsuit is currently pending.
In addition, according to the evidence Eul's evidence 1, the above Daegu District Court 201Gadan6362 was found to have been missing the money in the cause of the claim in the above Daegu District Court 201Gadan6362. Thus, the lawsuit in this case does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the final judgment in the above Daegu District Court 201Gadan6362 and the lawsuit in this case was withdrawn before the final judgment on the merits of the case was rendered. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is remarkably withdrawn before the above Daegu District Court Doldong District Court 2014Gaga791 is rendered final judgment on the merits, and it does not violate the principle of prohibition of re-litigation without going against res judicata effect.
Therefore, it is true.