1. The Defendant’s Plaintiff is based on Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Gahap20872 Decided April 12, 2013.

1. The facts below the basic facts can be acknowledged by taking into account each entry in Gap evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 3-2, the whole purport of the pleadings.

On July 10, 2012, on the ground that the Defendant lent a total of KRW 170 million to the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order of the loan claim against the Seoul Southern District Court 2012j12210. The instant case applied for the payment order was submitted to the Seoul Southern District Court 2012Ga20872 according to the Seoul Southern District Court’s decision on October 11, 2012, and the said court was closed the pleadings on April 5, 2013, and on April 12, 2013, the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”). The judgment of this case became final and conclusive on April 30, 2013.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is first that the actual debtor of the judgment of this case is the plaintiff's wife C, not the plaintiff, and the actual loan amount is KRW 150 million, not KRW 170 million. Thus, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment of this case shall not be permitted. Even if the plaintiff borrowed KRW 150 million from the defendant, the defendant bears the defendant's obligation to return unjust enrichment of KRW 33.4 million, which occurred around March 9, 2010, and the defendant has already collected KRW 128,930,751 from the plaintiff with the right to execute the judgment of this case as the title of debt of this case as the Seoul Northern District Court 2015TTTT8369 with the claim of this case as the title of execution. Accordingly, the defendant's claim of this case should not be permitted to repay the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 162,30,751,000,000.

3. Determination

(a) In general, the court or the parties are unable to make a judgment or argument contrary to the final judgment.