1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,00,000 and KRW 8,000 among them, 15% per annum from February 22, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 31, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 8,000,000 to the Defendant on a yearly basis, set as 30% of the interest and the due date on February 17, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, the purport of the whole argument

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the interest of KRW 32,00,000 (the sum of the principal of KRW 8 million and the interest of KRW 24,00,000 calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from July 31, 2008 to July 30, 2018, and the interest of KRW 24,000 per annum from July 30, 2018, and the interest of KRW 8,000,000 per annum from February 22, 2019 to the day of full payment of the principal.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy or discharge under the Suwon District Court Decision 2010Hadan7928, 2010Ma7928, the Defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy or discharge under the jurisdiction of Suwon District Court. On April 26, 2012, the said court declared bankruptcy against the Defendant, and rendered a decision to grant immunity on August 2, 2012.

The decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on August 17, 2012.

The defendant did not enter the plaintiff's loan claims in the list of creditors submitted to the court at the time of the above bankruptcy and exemption.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul-1, Eul-2, 3, 4, 5-1, 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. At the time of filing a petition for bankruptcy or exemption, the Defendant omitted the obligation against the Plaintiff in the list of creditors on the wind that had been forgotten, and there was no reason to intentionally omit the obligation against the Plaintiff.

Although the Plaintiff had an opportunity to raise an objection to the Defendant’s application for immunity, there was no ground for refusing to grant immunity to the Defendant, so there was no possibility that the Plaintiff would be accepted even if it had raised an objection.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant does not fall under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”). Therefore, the Defendant was exempted from liability for the above claim.

(c) judgment;