2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods against the Plaintiff’s genetic resource company (hereinafter “electric resource company”) was paid from January 2014 to May 2015 for electric cables supplied to the genetic resource company and the price of goods that were not received from the genetic resource company is KRW 575,806,764. The Plaintiff received KRW 400 million as the obligee of the price of the goods from the voluntary auction procedure for the real estate owned by the genetic resource company (Seoul District Court A) on August 26, 2016.

B. On March 31, 2014, the Defendants: (a) concluded a contract to accept a subcontract for the electrical construction of an agency building project to be relocated by the National Tax Service of Jeju Innovation City (hereinafter “instant subcontracted project”); and (b) concluded a contract with the Defendants, Hyundai MCo Co., Ltd., Han-il Construction Co., Ltd., and the Jeju Innovation City Co., Ltd.; and (c) concluded a contract to accept a subcontract for the subcontracted project with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant subcontracted project”); and (d) set the subcontract price of KRW 3,690,50,000 as the subcontract price between the

C. On July 31, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan1357 (the claimed amount KRW 191,48,943) and the Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan1680 on September 11, 2015 (the claimed amount KRW 350,000), respectively, received the provisional seizure order against the claim against the Defendant by having the debtor and the Defendant as the garnishee, and each of the above provisional seizure orders (hereinafter “provisional seizure order of this case”) was served on the Defendant on August 5, 2015 and September 15, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 13582, Sep. 11, 2015>

On November 3, 2015, the rehabilitation applicant filed an application for rehabilitation with the Daejeon District Court 2015 hap5044 on November 3, 2015, and the rehabilitation court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on December 14, 2015, but on February 29, 2016, decided to discontinue rehabilitation procedures on the ground that the liquidation value is higher than the continuous business value.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 7, 8, 13, 15 to 19, Eul's 1, 4 to 7, and 11 (including a branch number for a tentative; hereinafter the same shall apply) respectively.