1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 26, 2002, the summary of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim D obtained a loan from the Federation (hereinafter “C”), and subsequently, on July 26, 2002, C had the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage”) of KRW 130,000,000 from the maximum debt amount, and F succeeded to the status of the obligor of the said right to collateral security from D on May 30, 203.

On September 30, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract acceptance agreement with C on September 30, 2003 (hereinafter “instant contract acceptance agreement”) with the effect that the debtor of the above right to collateral security was changed from F to the Plaintiff and F would accept F’s debt of KRW 9,800,000.

However, the above contract acceptance agreement is null and void as it is concluded with the belief that the C employee only assumes the obligation and does not bear the actual obligation. Ultimately, there is no Plaintiff’s obligation based on the contract acceptance as of September 30, 2003.

2. In this case, in which the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff, the lower court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 35,168,430 won and damages for delay as a debt under the contract acceptance agreement of this case to the Defendant. The lower court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on August 14, 2014. Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal and appeal against the said judgment, the Plaintiff’s appeal and appeal were dismissed on June 24, 2015 and October 29, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive is significant for the party members.

Therefore, in the lawsuit of this case where the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the absence of an obligation under the contract acceptance agreement by asserting that the contract acceptance agreement of this case is null and void due to false indication of conspiracy, etc., the existence of an obligation pursuant to the contract acceptance agreement of this case is recognized by res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim

(Supreme Court Decision 94Da8037 delivered on September 9, 1994). 3. If so, the plaintiff is the plaintiff.