1. The defendant's KRW 50,000,000 and its amount shall be 17% per annum from April 1, 1994 to January 27, 2004 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of the cause of claim recognized - Taking over the judgment amount;

A. On January 15, 2004, the Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of money (2004Gahap3135) against the defendant et al. with the Seoul Central District Court on the same year.

1. After the delivery of the complaint to the defendant on June 16, 2004, the judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant on June 16, 2004, and the above judgment was rendered in the same year.

7.2. Service to the Defendant for the same year

7. It was finalized on 17.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 175,774,204 won and 110,614,731 won among them, interest rateing to 17% per annum from April 1, 1994 to January 27, 2004, and 20% per annum from January 28, 2004 to the date of full payment.

B. On September 18, 2012, the Korea Asset Management Corporation granted to the Plaintiff the authority to notify the transfer while transferring the above obligation to the Plaintiff. Since October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on behalf of the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (Additional Number omitted)]

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of immunity

A. On January 25, 2008, the Defendant rendered a declaration of bankruptcy by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Hadan37095 Decided January 25, 2008, and rendered a declaration of immunity by the decision on June 27, 2008, respectively, and the above decision of immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

[C] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul 1-1, 2]. However, at the time of the above decision on immunity, the Korea Asset Management Corporation and its claims were not included in the list of creditors, and the plaintiff asserted that the above claims are not effective since the defendant did not enter them in the list of creditors in bad faith. The defendant asserted that the above claims did not affect the effect of immunity. The defendant did not enter them in the list of actual waterways and did not enter them in bad faith as at the time of the petition for bankruptcy.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s bankruptcy and application for immunity, i.e., evidence Nos. 7, evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 2-2, and evidence Nos. 3-1, 3-6 by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the respective statements Nos. 7, 8-2, and 3-1 through 6.