The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming for the payment of the loan amounting to KRW 9,680,000 and the delayed damages ( party members 2003 Ghana 124698). The instant case was served by means of public notice on the complaint and the date of pleading, and the Defendant’s favorable judgment was rendered on December 17, 2003, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 6, 2004.

【Ground A evidence】

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim, and the Plaintiff asserts that there is no debt of the instant case, since it did not know the Defendant and did not borrow the Defendant.

B. (1) First of all, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is not brought in this case for the purpose of excluding the executory power of the previous suit for which the judgment became final and conclusive, but rather for the purpose of excluding the executory power of the previous suit. As such, there is a benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of an obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da108863, May 9, 2013). The res judicata effect means that the lawsuit is not permitted after the same subject matter of the prior suit as that of the previous suit for which the judgment has res judicata effect, and at the same time

Even if a judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit becomes a prior question after the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit or is inconsistent with the judgment on the prior suit, the subsequent lawsuit does not allow any assertion different from the judgment on the prior suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002). The instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of a loan obligation against the Defendant is in conflict with the subject matter of a prior suit for which the said judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the instant assertion cannot be permitted as it is different from the judgment on the prior

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.