2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 24, 2005, the Gyeonggi Mutual Savings Bank filed a lawsuit against the defendant for loans amounting to 2004Gahap6105, and rendered a judgment on June 24, 2005 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 635,327,239 won and 376,376,798 won with interest of 19% per annum from October 14, 1999 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant previous judgment”). The said judgment was rendered by public notice due to the unknown whereabouts of the Defendant.

B. The above A.

A claim under this paragraph was filed against the Defendant on August 27, 1996, and on November 18, 1996, the amount of interest and interest on the loan that was not paid to the Defendant was succeeded to by the Gyeonggi Mutual Savings Bank. The Gyeonggi Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on July 1, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap88.

C. On June 4, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court (former Seoul Rehabilitation Court) 2013dan135, and received a decision of commencement on June 25, 2013. On September 2, 2013, the first meeting of interested parties was held on September 2, 2013. On November 2 and 3, 2013, a decision of authorization was finalized on November 26, 2013.

After November 30, 2015, the rehabilitation procedure was completed. D.

On July 9, 2013, the Defendant, as a custodian of the above rehabilitation procedure (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”), submitted a list of rehabilitation creditors, etc. to the above court. The Defendant submitted a rehabilitation plan to obtain authorization as above.

E. The plaintiff is the above in the rehabilitation procedure of this case.

The claim mentioned in the paragraph was not reported as a rehabilitation claim, and the above claim was not entered in the list of rehabilitation creditors.

F. The plaintiff is based on the previous judgment of this case.

For the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim, on June 10, 2015, when applying for the instant payment order, only the partial amount was claimed, and the Defendant raised an objection against the payment order on August 13, 2015.