1. The Defendant’s KRW 198,726,245 and KRW 47,538,40 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 198,726,245 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 47,538,400 among them shall be KRW 45,70,200.

1. The grounds for the instant claim are as shown in the attached Form;

(However, the judgment of the court below is that the "creditor" is the "Plaintiff", and the "debtor" is corrected to the "Defendant", and the part relating to the cost of demand procedure is deleted). 2.

A. In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim and the overall purport of the pleadings, the cause of the claim in this case is recognized, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the same money as the written order.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that “B obtained authorization of the rehabilitation plan with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim against B during the rehabilitation procedure as the rehabilitation claim, and thus, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to make the instant claim against the Defendant, who is not B.”

However, the above circumstances asserted by the Defendant cannot be an obstacle to recognizing the claim for the instant promissory note against the Defendant, the issuer, who is the final transferee of the promissory note.

In addition, the rehabilitation plan does not affect the “right held by rehabilitation creditors or rehabilitation secured creditors against the debtor’s guarantor or any other person who bears obligations jointly with the debtor for whom rehabilitation procedures commence,” and “security provided by any person other than the debtor for rehabilitation creditors or rehabilitation secured creditors” (see Article 250(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is difficult to accept in this regard.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion.