1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C is at least KRW 10 million and 24% per annum from February 11, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff returned KRW 110 million to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on December 1, 2014, which determined that the Plaintiff returned KRW 100 million to the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on December 1, 2014.

(B) The Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant claim”).

Defendant Company filed an application for rehabilitation with Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gohap100210 on December 29, 2014, and rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation on January 16, 2015, and the same year.

9. On December 16, 199, the rehabilitation plan was approved to the effect that “76% of the principal and interest accrued prior to the commencement of rehabilitation claims shall be converted into equity and paid in cash,” and the Defendant Company did not report the instant claims as rehabilitation claims in the rehabilitation case, and the Defendant Company did not enter them in the rehabilitation claim list, and the rehabilitation procedure was completed on December 30, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3

2. Claim against the defendant company

A. The Defendant Company asserted the Plaintiff’s claim but omitted the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim from the list of rehabilitation creditors and omitted it from the list of rehabilitation creditors. As such, the Defendant Company sought 24,000,000 won (i.e., KRW 100,000 x 24%) that the Plaintiff could have been reimbursed in accordance with the rehabilitation plan if the above claim was entered in the list of creditors as damages for damages to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) Determination 1) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) is to prevent rehabilitation creditors from suffering disadvantages due to the failure to report their own claims due to the lack of knowledge of rehabilitation procedures, thereby resulting in forfeiture of rights arising from an authorization granted for the rehabilitation plan.

In light of the purport of the system’s list of rehabilitation creditors under Article 147, a custodian is obligated to enter the same in the list of rehabilitation creditors, unless the absence of a rehabilitation claim is objectively evident exceptional cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 13 February 13, 2012)