1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding 15 million won in total of loans from December 13, 2014 to February 5, 2015 shall be dismissed.

2.

1. We examine the legitimacy of this part of the claim ex officio with respect to the loan 15 million won claim.

The Plaintiff asserts that from December 13, 2014 to February 5, 2015, the Defendant lent a total of KRW 19 million to the Defendant and received repayment of KRW 4 million. The Plaintiff sought a loan of KRW 15 million against the Defendant.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 2 through 9 and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for a loan claim under this court 2015Gada6801, and sought the payment of the above loan, but was sentenced on June 20, 2015 to accept the above claim, the appellate court of the above case (this court 2015Na2585) can recognize the fact that the lawsuit was withdrawn. This is against the principle of prohibition of re-instigation under Article 267 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the plaintiff filed the same lawsuit after the final judgment on the merits was made.

Therefore, this part of the claim is unlawful.

2. Determination as to the claim amounting to KRW 5,069,946

A. From April 1, 2015 to the 6th day of the same month, the Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 5,069,946 to the Defendant on seven occasions. 2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim under this court’s 2015 Ghana1709, but withdrawn the lawsuit on October 1, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

B. The defendant's judgment on the previous defense of the merits stated that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful contrary to the non-assignment agreement, since he/she withdrawn all the previous lawsuits that the plaintiff had filed at the time of demanding an agreement and decided not to institute a lawsuit again, when he/she filed a criminal complaint by assault, theft, etc. against the plaintiff.

As seen earlier, the fact that the plaintiff completely withdrawn the two lawsuits filed against the defendant. However, such circumstance alone is sufficient to recognize that the special agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded.