1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur engaged in the manufacturing, manufacturing, and selling of plastic surface with the trade name of “D”, and the Defendant was supplied with raw materials for packaging from around 2005 to the company engaged in plastic manufacturing and selling plastic products.

B. When a promissory note with a face value of 15 million won at the face value (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) and a promissory note with a face value of 21.5 million won at the face value (20 million won) issued on June 27, 2013, which was delivered by the Plaintiff on May 2, 2013 for the repayment of the purchase price of goods to the Defendant, was refused to pay due to the nonperformance of payment, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the said promissory note (hereinafter “the instant promissory note lawsuit”) against the issuer and endorsers including the Plaintiff on December 23, 2013 as Busan District Court Branch Branch of the Busan District Court No. 2013Ka2547, Dec. 23, 2013. The said court rendered a final judgment on April 20, 2014, which became final and conclusive and conclusive.

C. According to the above judgment, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction (Seoul District Court Goyang support E) on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and the decision of commencement was rendered on November 24, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) From April 2014 to January 2016, 2016, the date of the closing of the instant promissory note payment lawsuit, the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant a total of KRW 102,600,000 in cash and in bills, etc., and was first appropriated for the Defendant’s obligation based on the judgment on the instant promissory note payment lawsuit, given that there was no agreement or designation as to the satisfaction of obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. (2) The Plaintiff’s return of the promissory note amounting to KRW 15 million around August 29, 2013 falls short of the Plaintiff’s return of the promissory note payment claim to the Defendant, but only 1,64 million until June 2014 after the date of closing of argument on April 29, 2014.