1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff extended loans based on the instant notarial deed (hereinafter “instant loan”) between the Defendant and the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant agreed not to pay interest or delay damages as to the above loan obligation, and the Defendant received dividends in each of the relevant dividend procedures as shown in the attached Table, and received 690,975 won in the process of compulsory auction by corporeal movables as of August 9, 2007, Cheongju District Court Decision 2007No. 491, Cheongju District Court, and received 690,975 won in the process of compulsory auction by corporeal movables, and thus the instant loan obligation was fully repaid. (2) The instant loan obligation constitutes commercial claim and the instant commercial claim was completed, even if the foregoing claim does not constitute commercial claim, and even if 10 years have passed from the due date of the instant claim, the instant loan obligation became extinct due to the completion of

B. Res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment on the assertion of performance shall affect all means of attack and defense in which the parties have asserted or could have asserted before the closing of argument in the previous suit. However, in a case where there is a change in circumstances inconsistent with the judgment in the previous suit due to a new cause arising after the closing

In addition, a new reason that occurred after the closing of argument refers to a new fact-finding, and there are new evidence on existing facts.

No circumstance is included, including the existence of a new legal evaluation or any other judgment that contains such a legal evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da222149, Aug. 30, 2016). A health care unit return to the instant case and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on March 15, 2016, with the same content as the Defendant’s reimbursement claim.