1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5 (including additional serial numbers), the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of loans under the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gaso9315, and on June 13, 2014, the defendant (the plaintiff of this case) was sentenced to a judgment by service stating that "the defendant (the plaintiff of this case) shall pay 18,000,000 won to the plaintiff (the plaintiff of this case) and 20% interest per annum from February 1, 2005 to April 17, 2014, and 10% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter referred to as "the final judgment of this case"). The above judgment becomes final and conclusive on July 3, 2014.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ghana9315 against the Defendant for the payment of loans in bad faith and was sentenced to a judgment based on service by publication, even though the Plaintiff fully repaid the Defendant’s loan obligations.

Therefore, there is no obligation of the Plaintiff against the Defendant based on the final judgment of this case.

B. The res judicata does not allow a subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a prior suit in which the judgment in the previous suit is res judicata, and at the same time, even if the subject matter of a prior suit is not the same as the subject matter of a prior suit in the previous suit, if the judgment in the previous suit is prior to or contradictory to the judgment in the previous suit, the judgment in the previous suit does not allow the subsequent suit to assert the means of attack and defense that existed before the closing of argument in the previous

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002). Moreover, in a prior suit, whether a party was negligent or negligent in not having been aware of, or having been unaware of, the means of offence and defense.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da79968, Mar. 27, 2014). In this case, the Plaintiff fully repaid the Defendant a loan.