1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of voting right in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's precision of rehabilitation debtor.

1. Whether the part concerning the claim for confirmation of voting rights in the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that, while the lawsuit in this case was pending, the Plaintiff was ordered to commence the rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff asserted that, with respect to KRW 501,00,000 and KRW 500,000 among them, the Plaintiff has a right to vote based on the rehabilitation claim equivalent to 6% per annum from August 22, 2015 to the date of full payment.

B. The judgment ex officio is based on the following: (a) where an objection is raised by a custodian, etc. against a claim for which a rehabilitation creditor has reported, a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of a rehabilitation claim is filed; (b) the existence of a claim or the details thereof are to be determined and confirmed; (c) rehabilitation creditors, etc. can only claim the matters entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors on the grounds and details of the objection in the proceedings for the confirmation of the rehabilitation claim; and (d) the amount of voting rights out of the matters entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors is excluded from those subject to the claim (see, e.g., Articles 158, 173, and 174(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da70903 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of the voting right based on the rehabilitation claim corresponding to KRW 501,00,000 and interest thereon and damages for delay is unlawful as it does not constitute a lawsuit for confirmation of the rehabilitation claim.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claim

A. 1) On December 22, 2010, the Plaintiff paid interest of KRW 500,000,000 per annum 5,000,000 (annual 12%, and February 22, 2011) between the trinology on December 22, 2010.

2) The loan (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”) is extended to the Company.

(2) The loan of this case is the loan of this case under an agreement to pay 100,000,000 won as principal every six months from December 23, 2013 (hereinafter “the loan of this case”).