1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 43,307,451 as well as KRW 40,872,032 among them, from October 18, 2017 to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts on the grounds of the attached claim (However, the creditor is the plaintiff, the debtor is deemed the defendant) do not dispute between the parties.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 26.9% per annum, which is the rate of delay damages from October 18, 2017 to the date of full payment of the principal and interest of loans of KRW 43,307,451 and the principal of the loans of KRW 40,872,032.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unreasonable since he applied for individual rehabilitation.

B. In a case where a lawsuit on individual rehabilitation claims has already been filed prior to a commencement order 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). The fact that the instant lawsuit has already been filed before the Defendant receives a commencement order of individual rehabilitation procedures is apparent in the record. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the effect of confirmation of claims on the existence and content of individual rehabilitation claims on the Plaintiff’s claims indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors has occurred due to the excess of the objection period against the Plaintiff’s claims indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation procedures. (In addition, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation procedures with Ulsan District Court Decision 2017Da17874, Jun. 12, 2013; however, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit).

(Visits) If the Plaintiff’s claim is entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors and a decision to authorize the repayment plan is made after the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures and the decision to authorize the repayment plan, the Defendant is exempted from liability for the remainder of the Plaintiff’s obligations according to the decision to grant immunity from the rehabilitation court after completing repayment according to the repayment plan prescribed in the decision to authorize the repayment plan). 3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.