1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 89,100,000 for each Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from May 16, 2014 to May 23, 2015 for each Plaintiff.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Determination

A. The above defendant A acknowledged the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff, but the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he received the exemption decision.

Therefore, the health department and Changwon District Court declared bankrupt by 2014Hadan931, and on November 28, 2014, by 2014Da9360, the same court, granted immunity pursuant to Article 564(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and confirmed on December 13, 2014, and at the same time, the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim is stated in the list of creditors submitted by the above Defendant to the above court is significant in this court.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the claim for indemnity of this case is a damage claim caused by intentional tort, and thus, it shall not be exempted from liability under Article 566 (proviso) 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Thus, according to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the insurer who paid the insured amount in the event of damage caused by the act of a third party is entitled to the rights of the policyholder or the insured against the third party within the scope of the amount paid. In this case, the rights of the insured, etc. against the third party are not lost identity and the insurer is transferred to the insurer. Thus, the issue of whether the claim acquired by the insurer constitutes a non-exempt claim under Article 566 (proviso) 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da3470 Decided May 28, 2009, etc.). However, according to the purport of the entire arguments and the written evidence Nos. 5 and 7, the Defendants, including Defendant B, concluded a lease contract for the building and purchased part of the purchase price with the loan to the seller, on August 2012, 2012, on the ground that the Defendants, including Defendant B, do not actually reside in the building because they colored the building without a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, and did not actually reside in the building.