1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) lent each of the Defendant KRW 30 million on June 13, 2009; (b) KRW 20 million on June 30, 2009; and (c) KRW 20 million on November 14, 201 to the Defendant respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 76.77 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the day when the plaintiff seeks to perform with the service of the original copy of the payment order in this case until

2. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 4, the plaintiff transferred 30 million won to C's account on June 13, 2009, and 20 million won to the defendant's account on June 30, 2009, and the fact that the plaintiff paid 26.77 million won to D on November 14, 201 can be acknowledged.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent the above sum of KRW 76.7 million to the Defendant (= KRW 26.77 million), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 4 as well as the entire arguments, the Plaintiff asserted that the sum of KRW 5,6777,00,000 (= KRW 26,7770,000,000) paid to C and D at the Defendant’s request was paid at the appellate court of the civil lawsuit filed by the Defendant ( Daejeon District Court 2016Na9115) and that set off a set-off defense based on the automatic claim equivalent to the above amount. On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff received a judgment from the appellate court of the civil case to reject the above set-off defense, and the above judgment can be recognized as the facts established on July 25, 2017.

Therefore, the part of KRW 5,677,00 among the Plaintiff’s loan claims is not established as to whether or not a claim alleging a offset is established under Article 216(2) and Article 216(2) of the Civil Procedure Act (the objective scope of res judicata), and the judgment has res judicata effect only for the amount asserted to offset

The res judicata of the offset defense is also contrary to the res judicata effect.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.