1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,99,640 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 25, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures electrical and electronic parts, and the Defendant is a person who carries on the business of receiving electronic parts from the Plaintiff and supplying them to the main company.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a pB assembly agreement with the Defendant and accordingly supplied the PCB assembly goods worth KRW 53,319,640 from August 7, 2012 to July 31, 2015. The Defendant paid KRW 1,320,000 out of the price of the above goods and did not pay KRW 51,99,640.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 51,99,640 for the goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 25, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case filed by the Plaintiff after the date of supply of the goods.

B. On October 1, 2015, the Defendant asserts to the effect that since the Defendant applied for individual rehabilitation on October 1, 2015, the instant lawsuit is unlawful or cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation as Suwon District Court 2015 Da122274 is recognized.

However, just because an application for individual rehabilitation has been filed, the litigation procedure cannot be interrupted or the rejection of the plaintiff's claim cannot be a ground.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(On the other hand, the defendant applied for the individual rehabilitation on October 1, 2015, but the decision to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure was not rendered even before June 9, 2016, which was the date eight months have elapsed since the date when the argument was closed). 3. If the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is reasonable, it is so decided as per Disposition.