A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in book publishing, selling, and printing business at the successful road 1 of the Ansan-si, and the Defendant purchased flaps, etc. manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff.

B. From May 1, 2005 to June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the total of KRW 2,176,017,750, such as flaps, etc., and the Defendant repaid KRW 1,967,06,686 out of the price of the goods.

C. On August 3, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017 Session58195, and was decided to commence individual rehabilitation procedures on November 7, 2017, and the Plaintiff is recorded in the creditor list, and the closing date of claims is January 4, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the goods price of KRW 208,951,064 (=2,176,017,750 - 1,967,066,686) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 6, 2017 to the date of full payment, following the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts to the effect that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he filed an application for individual rehabilitation and received a decision of individual rehabilitation.

In a case where a lawsuit on individual rehabilitation claims has already been filed prior to the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da42878, Sept. 12, 2013). The defendant filed an application for payment order on June 27, 2017, which was prior to the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, before the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, and the defendant filed an application for payment order on June 27, 2017. The fact that the lawsuit was implemented as a result of the defendant’s objection is apparent in the record, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the individual rehabilitation claim has been confirmed by the objection period with the objection period stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors (Article 603 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act).

3...