1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from March 16, 2009 to April 12, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. The defendant, on December 17, 2006, lent KRW 38,00,000 to C on the due date on March 15, 2009. On the same day, the defendant's joint and several liability guarantee against C may be recognized by taking into account the entries in evidence No. 1 and the whole purport of pleadings.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 38,00,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 16, 2009 to April 12, 2017 when a duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the plaintiff from March 16, 209, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. On the part of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the instant claim cannot be complied with, on August 10, 2017, because the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with Daejeon District Court 2017Da15807 and received a decision on individual rehabilitation.

On the other hand, where a lawsuit on individual rehabilitation claims has already been filed prior to a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures, litigation may be conducted (see 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 lawsuit in this case has already been filed on February 22, 2017, prior to the Defendant’s decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures, are apparent in the records, and there is no evidence to support that the effect of confirmation of claims on the existence and contents of individual rehabilitation claims has occurred due to the excess of the objection period specified by the Plaintiff’s claim in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

(At the time when it is decided to authorize the repayment plan after delay, the defendant completed repayment according to the repayment plan set forth in the above decision and will be exempted from the responsibility for the remainder of the plaintiff's obligations according to the immunity decision of the rehabilitation court). 3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.