1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall be 167.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the "creditor" is deemed to be the "defendant" for the plaintiff and the "debtor". 【The grounds for recognition】 Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 to 6

B. Determination 1 on the Defendants’ assertion 1) First of all, ex officio an action against Defendant B is deemed lawful. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “The claim against the debtor arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy shall be a bankruptcy claim.” Article 424 of the same Act provides that “The bankruptcy claim shall not be exercised without resorting to bankruptcy proceedings.” However, the fact that the adjudication of bankruptcy is rendered with respect to Defendant B on November 2, 2016, the date prior to the filing of the application for the instant payment order was filed by the District Court Decision 2016Ha-Ba491, which was before the filing of the application for the instant payment order, is without dispute between the parties. The Plaintiff reported each of the loans of this case to the bankruptcy court pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure as a bankruptcy claim and filed a final claim inspection judgment against Defendant B with the bankruptcy trustee pursuant to whether the bankruptcy trustee raised an objection to the said report, and cannot seek direct payment of money against Defendant B. Therefore, among the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against Defendant B is unlawful.

However, this argument cannot be accepted, since the defendant company's closure of business is not exempt from legal liability merely because it is currently unable to repay.

3 Defendant D, on February 1, 2012, resigned from the office of representative director of the Defendant Company, and thereafter, Defendant D did not guarantee the extension of the loan, thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the repayment date of each of the loans of this case shall be March 7, 2013.