The facts in the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by the purport of the entire statement and arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of indemnity to the plaintiff at the rate of 8% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from January 27, 2016 to July 6, 2016, which is the day following the date of service of the payment order in this case, from January 27, 2016 to July 6, 2016, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 7, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Therefore, according to the overall purport of evidence No. 8 and evidence No. 8, the defendant asserted that the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiff's request because the court was ordered to commence individual rehabilitation procedures, and according to the purport of the whole statement and pleading, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was ordered to commence individual rehabilitation procedures on January 29, 2014 by the Jung-gu District Court 2013 Ga16454, and that the plaintiff's claim has not been entered in the list of creditors. Unlike bankruptcy procedures, in individual rehabilitation procedures, even if the debtor has received immunity, it is not exempted regardless of whether he/she has acted in bad faith (see Article 625 (2) 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Thus, the defendant's above argument is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.