A. The Plaintiff’s construction details 1) On October 31, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the debtor company, and the debtor company entered into a contract with the debtor company for the construction of a modern steel plant (hereinafter “D plant construction”).

(3) Of the instant construction works, the construction cost portion of the Hyundai Steel 3 period, Coke Electric Construction amounting to KRW 1,155,000,000, and the construction period from October 31, 201 to August 31, 2013 was subcontracted (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract by the debtor company for the construction of a new D plant with the amount of construction cost of KRW 361,90,000, and the construction period of KRW 361,90,00, and the construction period from May 31, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

(2) On September 2013, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant construction”). Around September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff was at the storage site of the D plant construction from the debtor company (the type of the Stilo and the storage warehouse; hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

2) Upon receipt of the debtor company’s rehabilitation procedure commencement and the instant claim investigation final and conclusive judgment 1), the debtor company filed an application for rehabilitation claim with the Seoul Central District Court for rehabilitation proceedings as follows: (a) on February 16, 2014, the debtor company of the instant case for the construction cost of KRW 176,00,00 for the additional construction cost of KRW 213,40,000 for the additional warehouse restoration cost of KRW 7,385,00 for the instant warehouse restoration cost of KRW 396,785,00 (hereinafter “the instant rehabilitation claim”); and (b) on February 16, 2014, the debtor company filed an objection thereto, and filed an application for rehabilitation claim with the Seoul Central District Court for rehabilitation proceedings as the final and conclusive inspection proceedings as follows.

2. On September 2, 2014, the above court agreed with the debtor company not to receive the additional construction cost, and on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff paid the expenses for restoring the warehouse of this case.