1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of enforcement by this Court 2019 Chicago5006.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2005, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D drafted a written agreement with the following contents.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to repay KRW 120,000,000, out of KRW 170,000,000, which invested in the Blux business of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), to the repayment by New E Representative Director D, and cannot be held liable for the Plaintiff’s obligations after the agreement.

D There is an agreement on October 31, 2005 to pay the principal of KRW 120,000,000 and the interest of KRW 80,000 until October 31, 2005.

No. 235 of September 14, 2005, a notary public, at the commission of the plaintiff and the defendant, drawn up a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case") with the following contents.

Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 250,000,000 to the Plaintiff on September 6, 2005, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) The repayment of KRW 100,000,000 on September 30, 2005, the repayment of KRW 150,000 on October 30, 2005, the repayment of KRW 10,000 on October 30, 2005, and the repayment of KRW 10,000 E shares shall be refunded.

On September 6, 2005, the agreement shall be observed and shall be withdrawn from the complaint.

By September 30, 2005, 100,000 won shall be the date of repayment, and the date of final repayment shall be October 30, 2005.

The remaining balance shall be repaid of KRW 150,000,000 by October 30, 2005, and at the same time, shall be refunded of KRW 10,000 of E shares.

At the time of non-performance, the complainant shall be liable for civil or criminal liability. The complainant: the plaintiff (person)

C. On September 14, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a “agreement to withdraw a complaint” with the following contents.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On September 6, 2005, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff and D to pay the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant, and thereafter, agreed to assume the obligation to not be held liable for the said obligation to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s obligation based on the instant authentic deed is extinctive prescription.