1. Defendant B, among the judgment of the court of first instance, exceeding the money that ordered the Plaintiff to pay to Defendant B below.

1. Defendant B filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Daejeon District Court on March 8, 2018 regarding Defendant B’s defense prior to the merits of the instant lawsuit, and asserted that Defendant B’s part relating to the instant lawsuit relating to Defendant B should be dismissed as unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s claim amount is expected to be repaid without connection with the individual rehabilitation procedure.

According to the evidence evidence No. 7, Defendant B filed an application for individual rehabilitation with Daejeon District Court 2018 Daejeon District Court 2018, and the above court rendered a decision to discontinue individual rehabilitation procedures on September 28, 2018, but on November 12, 2018, rendered a decision to discontinue individual rehabilitation procedures without authorization of the repayment plan or immunity.

However, the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures does not only prohibit litigation but also discontinue individual rehabilitation procedures prior to authorization of the repayment plan as seen earlier, so there is no limit to the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B.

Therefore, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff determined the claim against Defendant B on May 13, 2015, with the maturity of KRW 40 million, May 13, 2018, with the interest rate of KRW 11.26% in arrears, and leased the loan (hereinafter “instant loan”). Defendant B delayed the repayment of the loan obligation from January 17, 2018, and on April 23, 2018, the principal and interest of the instant loan was KRW 40 million, interest rate of KRW 68,48,480 in total, KRW 40,68,480 in total, and KRW 40,68,480 in total, and the purport of the entire pleadings is either disputed between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the entries in subparagraphs 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, Defendant B’s objection to the Plaintiff’s principal and interest of KRW 40,688,480 and KRW 40,000,000 from April 24, 2018, which is the date following the base date for calculating interest, is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to be performed by Defendant B until September 30, 2019, which is the date of the judgment of this case, the agreed delay damage rate of KRW 11.26%.