1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 21, 2005, the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff the interest rate of KRW 2.5% per month, and on May 21, 2006, the due date for reimbursement of KRW 15 million was determined and lent to the Plaintiff as of August 30, 2005, with interest rate of KRW 2.5% per month and the due date of reimbursement of KRW 2.5 million as of March 30, 2006.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant loan”). (b)

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the instant loan (hereinafter referred to as “pre-appeal”), and both the litigation proceedings were served by public notice from the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the delivery of the written judgment, and on March 28, 2011, rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 35 million to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom,” which became final and conclusive as they are.

(Evidence) The fact that there is no dispute over the Seoul Eastern District Court 2010da79443. [Evidence], the entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 3-2, 9-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On June 12, 2006, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion added all the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant, including the instant loan obligations, and newly drafted to the Defendant a new certificate of loan worth KRW 50 million.

In addition, around June 11, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to exempt the Plaintiff from the remainder of KRW 20 million when the Defendant received reimbursement of KRW 30 million out of KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff’s mother C.

Therefore, all of the loan obligations of this case were extinguished.

Nevertheless, around December 29, 2010, the defendant filed a prior suit against the plaintiff for the payment of the loan of this case and received a favorable judgment, and the compulsory execution based on the judgment of the prior suit should be denied as abuse of rights and tort.

B. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 8 and the argument, the Defendant’s mother on June 11, 2008, stated that “The Defendant shall regularly receive KRW 30 million out of the Defendant’s loan claim against the Plaintiff and waive the remainder of KRW 20 million.”