2. The plaintiff.

A. From August 13, 2018 to November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied the debtor B with a total of KRW 51,823,794 won of steel pipes and received KRW 39,823,794, and the debtor corporation B promised to pay this to the Plaintiff by January 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

B. On April 11, 2019, C, which had been the former representative director, was found to have been a custodian in accordance with Article 74(4) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s application, C’s custodian B, a rehabilitation obligor, took over the Defendant’s status.

In the rehabilitation proceedings against Changwon District Court 2019 Gohap1007, the Plaintiff reported the claim asserted as a rehabilitation claim by the Plaintiff as the lawsuit in this case, and the administrator C denied the claim on the ground that the lawsuit in this case is in progress.

E. While changing the instant lawsuit into a lawsuit for confirmation of rehabilitation claims, the Plaintiff amended the purport of the claim to seek confirmation that the Plaintiff had a rehabilitation claim, such as the purport of the claim, against the rehabilitation obligor B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, a significant fact in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part concerning the claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claims against delay damages in the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

(a) The rehabilitation creditor who intends to take an ex officio the matter, and any other person who intends to participate in the rehabilitation procedures shall report the contents and cause of the rehabilitation claim within the reporting period, and the matters which are the object of the confirmation of the rehabilitation claim are reported as the rehabilitation claim and are limited to those which are listed in the list of the rehabilitation creditors,