1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On July 24, 2018, with respect to cases of suspension of compulsory execution by this Court 2018 Chicago49

1. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 2017, the Defendant purchased from the Plaintiff for KRW 180,000,000 from the Plaintiff for KRW 70,000,000,000, D Alback wingler II (hereinafter “instant Tr”) and filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the purchase price against the Plaintiff, asserting that the sales contract for the instant Trrbler was rescinded as the Plaintiff’s impossibility of performance. On October 12, 2016, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70,000 and damages for delay from October 12, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

(hereinafter “Prior Judgment”). (b)

On October 17, 2017, the argument of the appellate court was concluded on October 31, 2017 and the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on October 31, 2017 regarding the above judgment by the Daejeon District Court No. 2017Na3268, and the previous judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Defendant’s operation of the instant renalr on May 29, 2017, did not incur any loss by disposing of E on and around May 29, 2017; and (b) the Defendant’s repayment obligation against the Plaintiff, which is simultaneously performing with the refund of the purchase price, was impossible; and (c) thus, the Defendant’s claim for the prior

In addition, the Plaintiff has the principal and interest claim of KRW 20 million as of November 22, 2010 against the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff set off the claim with the principal and interest claim of the above loan against the Defendant.

Even if the preceding judgment was not extinguished by set-off, the defendant collected the above judgment claim upon receiving the Daejeon District Court 2018TTT2085 collection and collection order.

3. Determination

A. First, with respect to whether the Defendant disposed of the instant scraper to E, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely on the basis of each description of health room, Gap evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 2, and otherwise.