1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2014 Chicago873, this Court

1. Basic facts

A. On August 16, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim by Suwon District Court Decision 2013Kadan80210, Nov. 21, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment by public notice, stating that “The Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) the amount of KRW 30,000,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from November 17, 2013 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit”).

B. Accordingly, on August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal with the Suwon District Court 2014Na32301 (hereinafter referred to as the Suwon District Court) but was sentenced to the rejection of appeal on May 14, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 4, 2015 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal against the said judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 5, and Eul 2's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the plaintiff's confirmation of non-existence of the obligation cited in the judgment of the previous suit of this case against the defendant, the defendant filed the lawsuit of this case without using the appeal procedure, which is a more convenient means for dispute resolution, and the subsequent appeal was filed but the judgment dismissing the appeal became final and conclusive, and thus, the part of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the obligation of this case was unlawful due to lack of the requirements for protection of rights, and even if not, contrary to the judgment of the previous suit of this case, it is against the res judicata effect.

In this case, the plaintiff did not have lent the above KRW 30 million from the defendant, which was the reason that occurred before the closing of argument in the judgment in the previous suit in this case. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is a benefit to seek confirmation as to the loan obligation of KRW 30 million, which was cited in the judgment in the previous suit in this case, because it is not consistent with the substantive relationship. The appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment in the previous suit in this case was dismissed and became final and conclusive, and the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit for retrial to exclude the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit in this case,