1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,542,584 as well as 8% per annum from September 5, 2018 to July 23, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts in the separate sheet of the reasons for the recognition do not conflict between the parties.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Since the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation and is underway, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit does not have a benefit to the lawsuit.

B. The proviso of Article 600(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act excludes litigation from the act of suspension or prohibition by a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures. In light of the substance of Articles 600(1)3, 603, and 604 of the same Act and the nature of the individual rehabilitation procedure, which is a collective debt settlement procedure, and the purport of the final judgment on individual rehabilitation procedures, the purport of the proviso is to enable litigation regarding individual rehabilitation claims that are entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors at the time of the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures, in cases where a lawsuit regarding individual rehabilitation claims that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da42878 Decided September 12, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da42878, Sept. 12, 2013). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the instant case, the Defendant applied for individual rehabilitation on November 12, 2018 by Daejeon District Court 2018Da1024276, Nov. 12, 2018; the Defendant’s application was dismissed on March 25, 2019; the Defendant appealed, but the Defendant filed a complaint (SJ District Court 2019Ra10162), but the decision on the appeal was not rendered until the closing of argument in the instant case; the Defendant’s “application for individual rehabilitation” alone does not prevent the obligee’s procedural acts to secure title or discontinue the litigation proceedings; and thereafter, the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedure was rendered after the commencement of the proceedings.

Even if a lawsuit regarding individual rehabilitation claims stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors was already filed at the time when the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures was rendered, the lawsuit in this case is deemed to have been interrupted or to have become unlawful.