1. The judgment of the court of first instance (the part of the suspension of compulsory execution, including the part of the suspension of compulsory execution, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into the instant monetary loan agreement with the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. and borrowed KRW 100 million on the same day.

The Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes in the Co., Ltd. with “Plaintiff, Defendant, C, and D” as a joint issuer and with a face value of KRW 150 million in the form of a joint issuer, and a notary public received the Promissory Notes in the form of No. 100,000,000 in the form of “No. 100,000,000.”

From August 28, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 135,071,544, a sum of KRW 135,071,544, and repaid all the principal and interest of the instant monetary loan agreement, thereby extinguishing all of the obligations.

Around February 1, 2016, the Defendant acquired bonds based on the Promissory Notes in this case from the Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., but, as such, the underlying claim has ceased to exist, compulsory execution based on the Promissory Notes in this case shall be dismissed.

B. As can be seen from October 14, 2015 and November 9, 2011 of the same year, the plaintiff sent a notice to the plaintiff demanding the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan under the monetary loan agreement of this case, there is no fact that the plaintiff paid the above loan principal and interest to the plaintiff.

2. There is no evidence under the Civil Procedure Act to acknowledge that the plaintiff paid all the principal and interest of the loan under the monetary loan agreement of this case to the Co., Ltd.

(3) The court of first instance held that the plaintiff did not submit a written answer, and the plaintiff did not appear at the date of pleading while being lawfully served a notice of the date of pleading on the date of pleading, and the above evidence was not present at the pleading. The plaintiff did not dispute the defendant's argument at the appellate court.