1. The Seoul Central District Court shall authorize the final claim inspection judgment 2015 Mada1112 dated February 2, 2016.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2014, Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gohap108 filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures with respect to the debtor’s name and transportation company (hereinafter “debtor Company”).

On July 3, 2014, the above court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures for the debtor company, and appointed B as the debtor company’s custodian on July 24, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff, a creditor of the debtor company, filed a report on rehabilitation claim regarding KRW 100 million as of March 3, 2009, within the reporting period, but the administrator of the debtor company raised an objection to the whole of the claims. The Plaintiff filed an application for the final claim inspection judgment with the above court 2014da1408 within the said period.

C. On September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff reported rehabilitation claims after the expiration of the reporting period with respect to KRW 100,000,000,000, and the custodian of the debtor company raised an objection to the whole of the claims on May 20, 2015, which is the special inspection date.

On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the final claim inspection judgment with the above court 2015 probability112.

With respect to an application filed on February 2, 2016 (c), the rehabilitation court rendered a decision to dismiss the application for the judgment in claim allowance proceedings after one month from May 20, 2015, which is the special inspection date, on the ground that it is unlawful since the Plaintiff applied for the judgment in claim allowance proceedings (hereinafter the decision in this case), and the decision to confirm that the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation claim against the company is KRW 100 million upon receiving the application filed by the Plaintiff.

E. On August 18, 2016, the rehabilitation court decided to terminate the rehabilitation procedure for the debtor company, and thereafter, the debtor company changed its trade name to the same injury-based corporation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the obligor company in 2009 and entrusted the operation of 4 taxi in the form of half-in, and paid KRW 100 million to the obligor company in 2012.