1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 13 (including, if any, various numbers are included; hereinafter the same shall apply) by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

The defendant and C were members of the sequences No. 1985, and D were husbands of C.

B. On December 11, 2012, the Defendant lent KRW 5 million to D at the rate of 2% per month.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”). C.

The Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 5 million on July 27, 2014 and KRW 5750,000 on July 7, 2014 to the Defendant’s ancillary F’s account by using his/her father’s E’s account.

(hereinafter “instant money”). D.

In the case of loans (Counterclaim) rendered between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Jyang-si District Court Decision 2016Gaso96 (Main Office), 2016Gaso8656 (Counterclaim), 2016Na574 (Main Office), 2016Na5896 (Counterclaim), the appellate court of the appellate case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant money is loans to the Defendant is loans to the Defendant by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s claim for the instant money was dismissed on August 23, 2017 as it was recognized that the Plaintiff subrogated for the debt of the instant money at the request of D or C, and the judgment became final and conclusive after appeal.

(hereinafter “previous Litigation”) 2. Determination of this Safety Defense (including assertion that this defense goes against res judicata)

A. The gist of the defendant's defense is that the plaintiff has already filed a lawsuit for the return of loan against the defendant regarding the money of this case for which the plaintiff claimed that he lent to the defendant in this case, but has been ruled against the defendant in the previous lawsuit, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the return of the above money again violates the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit, and thus, it is not permissible.

B. The right in question is intended to be abused as to whether the right of action has been abused.