1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 82,50,000 and KRW 50,000 among them, from January 27, 2007, KRW 32,500,000.

1. If the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned KRW 65,00,000 to the defendant on October 24, 2006, and the defendant paid KRW 15,000,000 among them on or before December 2006, and agreed to repay KRW 32,50,000 to the defendant until January 26, 2007, and additionally repay KRW 32,50,000 to April 21, 207, the Seoul East East District Court Decision 209Da38507, and the above court rendered a lawsuit against the defendant on August 28, 2009 with KRW 82,50,000 to the plaintiff (the plaintiff case) and KRW 50,000 to the 207,500,000 to the 207,075,000 won per annum, respectively.

(2) The court below's decision was delivered to the defendant on October 2, 2009 and it became final and conclusive on October 16, 2009.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to repay the loan to the plaintiff in accordance with the prior judgment of this case, and since the completion of the extinctive prescription of the loan claim established by the prior judgment of this case is imminent, the interest in the lawsuit of this case is recognized.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that he was unaware of the filing of the lawsuit until the prior judgment of this case was rendered. However, the aforementioned circumstance is only the ground for asserting it through an appeal or retrial against the prior judgment of this case, and thus, it does not err in its determination.

B. The defendant asserts that there is no obligation to return the borrowed amount to the plaintiff.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the parties has res judicata effect, the parties can not file a new suit based on the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment.