1. The defendant shall pay 24,800,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from June 4, 2005 to the day of complete payment.

1. On July 15, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2005Kadan35986, and was sentenced by the above court to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 35 million won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from June 4, 2005 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 9, 2005 (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”), and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on July 21, 2014 in order to extend the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant under the final and conclusive judgment of this case does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by the entries of subparagraph 1 and the entire purport of pleading.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,80,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 4, 2005 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that he repaid KRW 18,000,000 out of the final and conclusive amount of the instant judgment to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, if there exists a final and conclusive judgment, any assertion or defense arising prior to the closing date of the final and conclusive pleadings in the same trial court is interrupted by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment. As such, it cannot be asserted against the contents of the final and conclusive judgment due to the same reason, and the court cannot make any judgment inconsistent with this (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da1338, Nov. 23, 1976). In addition to KRW 10,200,000, the Plaintiff paid additional amount to the Plaintiff after the date of the final and conclusive pleadings in the instant final and conclusive judgment, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant paid additional amount to the Plaintiff after the date of the final and conclusive pleadings in the instant

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.