1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 94,436,669 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 9, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument by Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant prepared and executed a written statement of performance of obligation stipulating that KRW 94,436,669 shall be paid to the plaintiff on May 9, 2016. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above agreed amount of KRW 94,436,669 and delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstance.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of immunity

A. On this issue, the defendant asserted that the bankruptcy and immunity became final and conclusive, and that the effect of the above bankruptcy and immunity is limited to the claim of this case, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

In this regard, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, in bad faith, omitted the claim of this case from the creditor list, constitutes non-exempt claim.

B. Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.

The grounds for excluding claims not entered in the list of creditors are as follows: if there are creditors not entered in the list of creditors, the creditors are deprived of the opportunity to file an objection, etc. to the application for immunity within the scope of the immunity procedure, and accordingly, the immunity is permitted without any objective verification of the grounds for non-permission of immunity stipulated in Article 564 of the above Act.