1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from April 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant issued, on January 4, 2012, promissory notes to the plaintiff at par value of KRW 100 million, the date of payment, June 30, 2012, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of issuance and payment, and the payee, and on the same day, the notary public prepared and issued the authentic deed of promissory notes No. 11 of the C law office in 2012.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100 million and its delay damages at the rate of 20% per annum from April 14, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant's claim is included in the above individual rehabilitation claim while the individual rehabilitation procedure is in progress, which the plaintiff seeks by the lawsuit of this case.

Any individual rehabilitation creditor who has an objection to the details of the list of individual rehabilitation creditors under Articles 596, 603, and 604 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall file an application for a final judgment on an individual rehabilitation claim inspection within the objection period prescribed at the same time as the decision on the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures is made, and if there is an objection against any right that has already been pending at the time of commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, the details of the lawsuit that has already been pending shall be changed to the lawsuit for final judgment on an individual rehabilitation claim inspection, and if no application is filed within the objection period,

However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the defendant received a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures, and instead, the court rendered a decision to dismiss the application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures on June 1, 2015 in the Suwon District Court 2014da6681, which commenced by the defendant's application, is significant in this court. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.