beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the modification of claims in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiff's defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 10, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings against the Plaintiff on May 10, 2012. According to the rehabilitation plan finalized on September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff’s obligation to lend the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security right to the Defendant (hereinafter “Rehabilitation obligation”) according to the rehabilitation plan finalized on September 25, 2012.
) The principal amount of KRW 16,240,474,410 (=the principal amount of KRW 16,159,116,877) was changed. 50% of the total interest amount of KRW 81,357,533 prior to commencement of the second year (2014) was paid in cash in the third year (2015), and the remainder 50% was paid in cash in the third year (2015). The interest accrued from the first year (2012) through the first year (2013) was paid in the first year (2013) by applying the interest rate of KRW 6% per annum to the unpaid principal and interest accrued from the second year (2013) was terminated in April 4, 2013.
3) The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,203,287,124, and KRW 1,568,263,56 on December 30, 2013 upon the repayment of the rehabilitation obligation to the Defendant. (b) The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to revise the repayment plan for the Plaintiff’s obligation. (i) The Plaintiff, etc. requested the change of the repayment plan for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant to pay KRW 201,042,260 on December 22, 2014, when he/she paid the rehabilitation obligation according to the rehabilitation plan for operating a factory located in Sejong-si (hereinafter “the measure plant”) at the end of the end of the period from the end of December 2014 to the end of the end of June 7, 2015, on December 22, 2014, on the ground that it was difficult to secure cash liquidity due to the invasion of the real estate market, etc.
2. On March 20, 2015, the Defendant pointed out that the due date under the rehabilitation plan has expired, but the repayment has not been implemented. However, if the repayment is not implemented by March 30, 2015, the legal procedure is followed and the Credit Information Management Rules are set forth.