1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on July 25, 201, the Defendant loaned KRW 9 million with the Defendant’s apartment purchase fund, KRW 24 million with the Defendant’s purchase fund, KRW 24 million with the Defendant’s middle-stick vehicle purchase fund, KRW 10 million with the tax and public charges related to the transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s office and the fees for certified judicial scriveners, around December 2012, KRW 10 million with the Defendant’s business operation fund, KRW 53 million with the Defendant’s business operation fund, and KRW 10 million with the Defendant’s business operation fund, the Defendant shall pay the above loan to the Plaintiff.

2. On the other hand, in a subsequent suit against the same subject matter of a lawsuit, seeking a judgment inconsistent with the existence or absence of the legal relationship determined in the final and conclusive judgment by asserting the means of offence and defense that existed prior to the closing of argument in the prior suit is contrary to res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in the prior suit. Moreover, in a prior suit, whether the parties were unaware of the said means of offence and defense and whether there was negligence in the prior suit, or not.

In addition, in principle, res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is recognized only as included in the text. However, even if it is included in the reasons, a set-off claim is accepted as to the automatic claim asserted as a set-off claim, regardless of whether it has been accepted as a offset claim or not (see Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act). In light of the above legal principles, according to health class and evidence No. 1 of this case, in a counterclaim seeking compensation for damages in this case against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed against the Plaintiff, claiming that the Plaintiff has a claim of KRW 53 million against the Defendant, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s counterclaim on February 7, 2017, and the Plaintiff sought a loan identical to the loan alleged in the previous suit, and the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case is identical to that of the previous suit.