(a)the reasons for the attachment to the indication of the claim and each of the changed reasons for the claim;

(However, ‘creditor' is considered as ‘Plaintiff' and ‘debtor' as ‘Defendant'). 【No dispute exists, the entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff secured the vehicle as a collateral for the instant loan, and that it is unreasonable to claim the Defendant, a joint guarantor, to the extent that the disposition of collateral was delayed due to the primary debtor’s rehabilitation procedure.

However, the fact that the principal and interest specified in Paragraph (1) still remain remaining even if the Plaintiff was appropriated for the repayment of the claim for the loan of this case with the money distributed to the Plaintiff in the case of the car rental auction case B in the Daegu District Court for the security vehicle B, and as such, the rehabilitation plan does not affect the rights of the rehabilitation creditor against the guarantor of the debtor for whom the rehabilitation procedure has commenced (Article 250(2)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

2. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition No. 1.