1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

We examine the defendant's main defense that has been already prepared in the table of rehabilitation creditors.

As the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 131,285,550 won to the Plaintiff on April 19, 2012, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff.

According to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”), when there is no objection by any custodian, any rehabilitation creditor, any rehabilitation secured creditor, any shareholder, any equity right holder, or any equity right holder on the inspection period or special inspection date in the rehabilitation procedures, the contents of any reported rehabilitation claim and any rehabilitation security right or any rehabilitation security right, if there is no objection, the amount of the reported rehabilitation claim and any rehabilitation security right is confirmed (Article 166 of the Act). When any confirmed rehabilitation claim and any rehabilitation security right are entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors and any rehabilitation secured right, the entry therein has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment for all rehabilitation creditors, any rehabilitation secured creditor, any shareholder, any equity right holder (Article 168 of the Act). The same applies to cases where the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures has become final and conclusive prior to the authorization of the rehabilitation plan (Article 292(1) of the Act). In such cases, any rehabilitation creditor or any rehabilitation secured creditor may perform compulsory execution against the debtor according to the table of rehabilitation creditors or any rehabilitation secured

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant filed an application for rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ma10095 on April 6, 2015. The above court did not appoint a manager separately on April 21, 2015, and commenced rehabilitation proceedings against the defendant with the defendant as a custodian, but decided to abolish the proceedings on September 25, 2015. The defendant in the above rehabilitation procedure is in the position of a custodian.