1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. On November 4, 2014, this Court has regard to cases where a request for suspension of compulsory execution was made by this Court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff received a delivery of the following promissory notes from the Defendant:

(1) The serial number of a Promissory Notes (hereinafter referred to as " Promissory Notes") (1): The issuer of the Bank of Daegu on March 8, 2006 at the place of payment: (2) the issuer of the Bank of Daegu on March 8, 2006 at the place of payment: (3) the issuer of the Bank of Daegu on April 8, 2006 at the place of payment: (3) the delivery of the Promissory Notes number: The issuer of the Bank of Daegu on April 8, 2006 at the place of payment: (3) the delivery of the Promissory Notes number: (4) the delivery of the Bank of Daegu on April 8, 2006 at the place of payment: (3) The issuer of the Bank of Daegu on May 6, 2006 at the place of payment: the issuer of the Bank of Daegu on May 6, 2006

B. The Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff was using a promissory note discountedly, 2, 3. The Defendant approved the payment date of the said promissory note, and on May 6, 2006, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 51.2 million to the Defendant by November 6, 2006,” and filed a lawsuit seeking a loan of KRW 51.2 million against the Defendant.

On November 28, 2012, this Court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 50,1200,000 won and 20% interest per annum from October 11, 2012 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 19, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant loan judgment”). 【No dispute exists on the ground of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, Gap evidence No. 8-1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. On December 8, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed a promissory note from the Defendant and delivered it to B. On March 8, 2006, the Plaintiff recovered it and returned it to the Defendant, and then the Plaintiff received a promissory note from the Defendant and delivered it to B.

On April 7, 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 12 million to B, and ② collected promissory notes and returned them to the Defendant, and ③ received promissory notes from the Defendant and delivered them to B.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant on May 12, 2006, and thus, the obligation arising from the borrowing of promissory notes against the Defendant is both.