1. The part of the claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claims against delay damages in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 200 million to B’s deposit account (C Bank D) and KRW 200 million to B’s deposit account (C Bank E) on February 28, 2016, and remitted the total amount of KRW 400 million (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. On April 20, 2017, B was decided by the Busan District Court to commence rehabilitation procedures (Jansan District Court 2016dan1028), and B was appointed as a custodian.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) without distinguishing between the debtor and the manager.

The plaintiff asserted that he lent the instant money to the defendant, and reported it as a rehabilitation claim in the above rehabilitation procedure, but the defendant raised an objection thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence 1-1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A rehabilitation creditor who intends to participate in the rehabilitation procedure regarding the claim for confirmation of a claim for damages for delay among the lawsuit in the instant case shall report the details and cause of the rehabilitation claim within the reporting period, and the subject matter of the lawsuit for confirmation of the rehabilitation claim is limited to the matters listed in the list of rehabilitation creditors (Articles 148 and 173 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), which are reported as a rehabilitation claim and are recorded in the list of rehabilitation creditors (Articles 148 and 173 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). A lawsuit for confirmation of the claim that seeks confirmation

(2) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the confirmation of a rehabilitation claim against the Defendant as a rehabilitation claim on November 24, 2000 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1327, Nov. 24, 2000). However, as seen in the above basic facts, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the instant money in the rehabilitation procedure against the Defendant and reported it as a rehabilitation claim. However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the aforementioned loan was reported as a rehabilitation claim.

3. Judgment on the merits.