1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The Defendant asserts that in the instant lawsuit, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the KRW 10 million for which the Plaintiff sought payment to the Defendant is included in this Court 2017Gahap29304 and the Seoul High Court 2018Na2023252 (hereinafter “relevant case”), the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a duplicate lawsuit.

However, the duplicate of the complaint of the relevant case was served on September 20, 2017, and the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on September 14, 2017, whichever is earlier, is obvious in the record or significant in this court.

As long as the instant lawsuit has been pending before the continuation of the relevant case, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed to constitute a duplicate lawsuit.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the statement Nos. 2 and 2, the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have claimed KRW 215,770,000,000 against the Defendant based on the performance memorandum prepared by the Defendant that “the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 215,70,000 from the Plaintiff during several times until February 4, 2016.” Thus, the instant claim based on the loan certificate issued on February 4, 2016 or around August 2016, differs from the claim of the relevant case, and thus, the instant lawsuit does not constitute a duplicate lawsuit.

On the other hand, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the third debtor of the above order by accepting the judgment of the first instance court of the provisional execution declaration of this case with the title of execution against the seizure and collection order, and the third debtor is the defendant's spouse. Thus, the third debtor is the defendant's spouse, and the above lawsuit of this case constitutes a duplicate lawsuit due to the above collection claim. However, the above collection claim is not the plaintiff's right to claim monetary payment against the third debtor, but the above lawsuit of this case is not a monetary payment claim against the defendant, and therefore the above lawsuit of this case is not a duplicate lawsuit.