1. The defendant shall pay 96,390,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 17, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant was indicted at this court under the charge of fraud, stating that “A person, even if borrowing money from the Plaintiff, did not have any intent or ability to repay the money due to a lack of certain income or particular property, by deceiving the Plaintiff, and received a total of KRW 9,639,000,000,000 from March 29, 2007 to August 27, 2012.”

(2) On October 16, 2014, this Court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged (2014Kadan896), and the Defendant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on February 12, 2015, and the said conviction became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 17, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, to the day of full payment.

2. As the Defendant’s defense was exempted from the instant claim upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity under the court 2013Hun-Ma1514, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant declared bankrupt and applied for immunity in this court on February 19, 2014 and was granted immunity by this court No. 2013 & 1514 on February 19, 2014 and the decision to grant immunity becomes final and conclusive is recognized.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, the claim in this case is a damage claim based on the fraudulent act, and can be recognized as a non-exempt claim under Article 566 (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. Thus, the defendant's defense that the claim in this case was exempted from the immunity decision is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.