2. The plaintiff's debtor B

The facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the instant claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of branch numbers).

The Supreme Court Decision 201Da70903 delivered on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da70903, Jul. 23, 2015) held that the amount of voting rights cannot be the subject matter of a lawsuit for confirmation of a rehabilitation claim, on the grounds that a rehabilitation creditor, etc. raises an objection against a claim reported by a rehabilitation creditor, etc. with respect to the existence of a claim or the details thereof, and that the right is determined and confirmed. Pursuant to Article 173 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a rehabilitation creditor, etc. may only claim the grounds and details of the claim in the table of rehabilitation creditors in the litigation proceedings for confirmation of a rehabilitation claim, and considering that the amount of voting rights among the matters entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors is excluded from the subject matter.

According to the facts of the judgment as to the remaining claims of the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages of KRW 92,058,591 and 53,480,066 among them, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 20, 2019 to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant, and from August 31, 2018, with respect to KRW 38,578,525 as to the remaining KRW 38,525 from August 21, 2018 to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant. Thus, it is clear that the rehabilitation claims against the plaintiff rehabilitation debtor B are the above amount.

In conclusion, the part of the claim for confirmation of voting rights in the lawsuit of this case is illegal.