A. The facts on the grounds of the attached claim (However, the creditor is the plaintiff, the debtor is deemed the defendant) do not dispute between the parties.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the rate of delay damages, from July 17, 2018 to the date of full payment, to the date of full payment of the principal and interest of loans of KRW 44,408,410 and the principal of the loans of KRW 41,540,896.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unreasonable since he applied for individual rehabilitation.

B. In a case where a lawsuit on individual rehabilitation claims has already been filed prior to a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures (see, e.g., the proviso to Article 600(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da42878, Sept. 12, 2013). The facts that the instant lawsuit has already been filed before the Defendant receives a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures are apparent in the record, and further, there is no evidence to support that the effect of confirmation of claims on the existence and content of individual rehabilitation claims on the Plaintiff’s claims indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors has occurred due to the excess of the objection period against the Plaintiff’s claims indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation procedures. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant

(1) In the event that the Plaintiff’s claim is entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and thereafter a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures and to authorize the repayment plan is made, the Defendant is exempted from liability for the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim according to the decision to grant immunity from the rehabilitation court after completing repayment according to the repayment plan established in the decision to authorize the repayment plan. 3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is reasonable, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.