1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in subparagraph 1-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on January 24, 2014 against the plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2014Da5094965, and the above court proceeded by means of service by public notice from the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the defendant on May 30, 2014, "the plaintiff shall pay 10,517,201 won to the defendant and 6,847,632 won from March 31, 2004 to December 2, 31, 2003 to April 22, 2014, and from April 22, 2014 to the full payment date of the complaint to the plaintiff on May 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case"), and the plaintiff shall be notified to the plaintiff by public notice as of December 31, 2014.

The plaintiff has already completed the repayment of the claim under the judgment of this case.

Although the above claim is asserted to the effect that the extinctive prescription of the above claim has expired, any assertion or defense arising from the grounds that could have been generated and submitted prior to the closing of argument in the fact-finding court shall be interrupted by res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment. Therefore, it is not allowed for the Plaintiff to newly make such grounds contrary to the contents of the final

In addition, the res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a prior suit in which the res judicata has res judicata effect, and in a case where the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit is prior to or contradictory to the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit even though the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as that on the subject matter of a prior suit, the judgment on the subject matter of a prior suit does not allow a subsequent suit to be asserted differently from the judgment on the prior suit in the subsequent suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da41349, Jan. 16, 201).