1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff from January 31, 1997 to the same year

9. up to eight times until January 29, 1997, totaling KRW 686,625,000 to the defendant shall be KRW 32,815,000 on January 31, 1997.

2. 14. 176,150,000 won; and

3.3. 47,500,000 won for the same year.

5.2. 88,400,000 won for the same year.

7. 34,550,000 won for the same year.

7. 24. 128,960,000 won.

6.98,250,000 won.

9. The total amount of eight loans worth KRW 80,000,000 and the above eight loans and loans together constitute “each of the loans and loans”

B) B. (B) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with Seoul Eastern District Court 2006Gahap12693 on September 20, 2006, where the Defendant did not repay each of the instant loan claims, and on December 1, 2006, the said court rendered a ruling that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 686,625,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 1, 1998 to October 9, 2006, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “prior ruling”).

(1) On December 27, 2006, the preceding judgment of this case was rendered and confirmed on December 27, 2006 (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings).

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 686,625,000 won with 5% per annum from October 1, 1998 to October 9, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. As to whether the statute of limitations has expired, the Defendant’s defense that each of the instant loan claims had expired, the facts that the instant prior ruling became final and conclusive on December 27, 2006 are recognized as above. The instant lawsuit is clearly recorded in the records, since the facts raised on May 17, 2017, which was ten years after the date of the final and conclusive judgment of the instant prior ruling, are apparent. Thus, each of the instant loan claims.