1. The Defendant’s KRW 81,094,658 and KRW 62,97,445 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 81,09,658 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 18,000 per annum from February 21, 2008 to May 21, 2008.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the creditor's "the plaintiff and the debtor" are deemed to be the defendant, and the payment order for the debtor's Green Construction Co., Ltd. was finally decided).

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1, the Defendant merely affixed the signature and seal on the loan agreement as the Plaintiff’s person in charge and Green C&T Construction Co., Ltd. did not use the loan, and the Plaintiff’s person in charge is also aware of the fact that the Defendant only lent the loan to the instant loan agreement, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. (2) However, even in a case where a new suit is allowed based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the judgment that became final and conclusive exceptionally due to special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, etc., the judgment of the new suit does not conflict with the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the previous suit. Therefore, the court in charge of the subsequent suit cannot re-examine whether

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111340 Decided April 11, 2013, etc.). Therefore, once the judgment in the previous suit became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 3, the Defendant cannot make any assertion against the said final and conclusive judgment in relation to the existence of the obligation in this case by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment, and the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted on the ground that the court does not render any judgment inconsistent with

2. For this reason, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted in full and is decided as per Disposition.