1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who processes and sells clothing with the trade name “D” in the female city, and the Defendant is a person who runs the original processing business with the trade name “F” in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

B. On December 21, 2013, the Defendant supplied each of the Plaintiff KRW 864,00 and KRW 169,500,000, KRW 2,880,000, KRW 2,880,000 on December 24, 2013, KRW 6,816,00, and KRW 115,50,00 on December 26, 2013 (hereinafter the above original group referred to as “instant original group”).

C. On December 26, 2013, the Defendant presented to the Plaintiff a statement of transaction that the Plaintiff has an outstanding amount of KRW 11,595,00,00 in total, including the original amount of the instant contract and the existing amount of the contract. On the lower right side of the said statement of transaction, the Plaintiff signed and sealed it by stating that “The aforementioned amount shall be repaid to the maximum extent possible by June 30, 2014. The remaining amount shall be paid in full by September 30.”

On December 31, 2014, the Defendant received 2 million won as the original payment from the Plaintiff.

E. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Seoul Northern District Court 2015dada43579) seeking the payment of the original amount, etc., and was sentenced to a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay the said KRW 9,595,000 and damages for delay.

Although the plaintiff filed an appeal against the above judgment (Seoul Northern District Court 2015Na8146, May 20, 2015), the plaintiff's appeal is "related appellate judgment".

(f) A final and conclusive judgment was rendered. According to the reasoning of the final and conclusive judgment of the appellate court, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay the original unit price of this case since the Plaintiff rescinded the contract due to the delayed supply of the original unit of this case, but it was rejected on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the original unit of this case supplied by the Defendant to December 2, 2013 was the original unit ordered by the Plaintiff on April 4, 2013. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 2, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 1