1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On March 18, 2019, this Court has issued an application for the suspension of compulsory execution against 2019 Chicago5.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 1, 2014 to May 28, 2018, the Defendant asserted that a total of KRW 40,084,00 has been leased to the Plaintiff, and that a total of KRW 33,372,00 has remainder of a loan claim of KRW 6,712,00 (= KRW 40,084,00 - 33,72,000 - 33,000) with repayment from the Defendant, the Defendant filed an application for the payment order with the Gwangju District Court 2009 on July 23, 2018, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to pay “the Plaintiff shall pay 6,712,000 won to the Defendant and 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment.”

B. On the above payment order, the Plaintiff raised an objection and performed a loan suit No. 2018 Ghana76021 against the Gwangju District Court. On December 6, 2018, the said court rendered a decision to close the pleadings and to accept the Defendant’s claim in full, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) transferred the sum of KRW 42,440,786 to the Defendant from November 25, 2015 to March 13, 2018. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s loan obligations against the Defendant were fully repaid.

Nevertheless, the defendant alleged that a loan of KRW 6,712,00 remains, and filed a lawsuit seeking its repayment, and received the judgment of this case and conducted compulsory execution on the corporeal movables owned by the plaintiff. The compulsory execution based on the above judgment should be dismissed.

(2) Of the 40,084,000 won, the amount equivalent to KRW 21,798,000, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff leased was working at the restaurant operated by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s credit card was used to use the Plaintiff’s seat and returned money, etc., not the loan.

In addition, the loan that the plaintiff did not pay to the defendant is only two million won that the defendant borrowed from C and lent to the plaintiff. The above two million won is also directly owned by the plaintiff C.