1. As to KRW 362,892,977 and KRW 166,962,71 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall start from April 30, 201 to September 30, 2015.

1. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 30, 201 to September 30, 2015 and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, since there is no dispute between the parties to the claim, or in full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers) and the whole pleadings. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 362,892,977 won in total, and the principal of 166,962,711, which is the day following the last calculation of interest.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim upon obtaining immunity from the 2009da2703 by the Gwangju District Court, including the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant by the bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt cooperative B, who transferred the claim to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, according to the records in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant was granted the exemption from immunity on November 25, 2009 by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2009Hau2703, 2009Hau2709, 2009, and 209, by filing the application for immunity from bankruptcy and the exemption from immunity on November 25, 2009, and the said exemption from immunity becomes final and conclusive at that time, and the claim against the Defendant

However, the proviso of Article 566 (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the "liability for damages caused by an intentional act by an obligor" shall be non-exempt claims. As seen above, the defendant has been sentenced to the judgment that the bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt union raised against the defendant in Gwangju District Court 2003Gahap3004 against the bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt union due to the settlement of accounts by intention, execution of unfair loans, and embezzlement of loans while working for the regular business of the B union, and the judgment became final and conclusive, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion