beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 81,64,135 and KRW 13,00,000 among them, from September 27, 2019 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or according to each entry in Gap 1 through 5 (including each number), the creditor among the facts as stated in the attached form of the cause of the claim in the attached form of the claim shall be deemed to be "the plaintiff" and the debtor to be "the defendant".
Any fact recorded may be recognized and there is no evidence that obstructs it.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 81,64,135 won for the amount of KRW 13,00,000 per annum from September 27, 2019 to the date of full payment, 7.12% per annum for KRW 30,000,000 per annum from September 27, 2019 to the date of full payment, 8.29% per annum for KRW 15,000,00 per annum for KRW 8.46% per annum from September 27, 2019 to the date of full payment, from September 27, 2019 to the date of full payment.
2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he/she applied for individual rehabilitation.
According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that the defendant applied for the individual rehabilitation (2019 Congress 21638) to the Busan District Court on October 8, 2019 is recognized, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the decision to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure was made by the closing date of the argument in this case.
In the instant case, where a lawsuit on individual rehabilitation claims is already filed prior to the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures (see, e.g., the proviso to Article 600(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da42878, Sept. 12, 2013). Even if this judgment is rendered, it cannot be deemed that there is any disadvantage in the Defendant’s future decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures or preparing a draft repayment plan in the individual rehabilitation procedures and obtaining authorization thereof.
Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.