1. The Defendant’s KRW 94,350,777 and KRW 92,377,484 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from October 29, 2016 to July 6, 2017.

1. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged upon full consideration of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the plaintiff's examination results, as a whole, the whole purport of arguments.

A rehabilitation company heading(hereinafter referred to as "heading") is a company that operates a golf course business, etc.

B. On May 11, 2015, upon filing an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gahap10067, the Family Court was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures, and the Defendant was appointed as a custodian on the same day, and was ordered to obtain the rehabilitation plan approval on April 25, 2016.

C. Under the above rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff filed a report on the claim amounting to KRW 118,196,860 (hereinafter “instant wage claim”) with the public interest claim, and the Defendant raised an objection thereto.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for the confirmation of rehabilitation claims under 2015 Ma1466 against the Defendant.

On May 27, 2016, a decision to recommend reconciliation was rendered to the effect that “the Defendant’s rehabilitation claim against the Plaintiff is KRW 102,893,165.”

The plaintiff and the defendant did not object to the above decision of recommending reconciliation, and the above decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive on June 11, 2016.

E. On October 28, 2016, the Defendant repaid KRW 10,515,681 to the Plaintiff according to the rehabilitation plan regarding the repayment of the rehabilitation claim.

On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff clearly stated in the written request for reimbursement that “the conversion of investment will take place at the time of default,” stating that “the conversion would object to the rehabilitation plan regarding the repayment of the rehabilitation claim.”

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for wages and retirement allowance that the Plaintiff asserted against Howon constitutes a public-interest claim under Article 179(1)10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).