1. Of the instant lawsuit, the claim for debt confirmation shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit medical corporation established on May 19, 195 for the purpose of establishing and operating medical institutions.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against A, etc. claiming return of unjust enrichment and loan, etc. by Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap26188, and A filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff by the same court 2009Gahap116067.

On September 29, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that partly accepted the plaintiff's main claim against A and dismissed the plaintiff's counterclaim against A.

B. The Plaintiff and A filed an appeal as Seoul High Court 2010Na109987 (Main Office), 10994 (Counterclaim).

A filed an application with Seoul High Court for the suspension of compulsory execution against the above judgment of the first instance court as Seoul High Court No. 201Kama481, and on April 15, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 100 million with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit in accordance with the order to provide security of the above court.

(hereinafter “The instant deposit money”). On April 18, 201, the Seoul High Court rendered a decision that “The enforcement between the Plaintiff and A based on the original copy of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap26188 (Mains), 116067 (Counterclaim), shall be suspended until the Seoul High Court 2010Na10987 (Mains) and 10994 (Counterclaim) case is declared.”

C. On October 13, 2011, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings as Seoul Central District Court 201 Ma124 and taken over the lawsuit by “C of the Plaintiff’s administrator of the rehabilitation debtor”. A filed an application for individual rehabilitation proceedings with the Seoul Central District Court 201Mo207, and “A of the rehabilitation debtor A” took over the lawsuit by “A”.

On September 13, 2012, the above appellate court held that “the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from June 23, 2007 to August 12, 2010 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment for rehabilitation claims against C by the administrator C of the Plaintiff’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s debtor’s legal administrator A” shall be determined.