2. The obligor drawn up in the Suwon District Court 201 Gohap11 rehabilitation case.

A. On February 8, 2011, the debtor's monthly construction industry corporation (hereinafter referred to as "PD construction industry") changed from "PD Construction Industry Co., Ltd. to "PD Construction Industry Co., Ltd." to "PD Construction Industry Co., Ltd."; hereinafter collectively referred to as "debtor's monthly construction industry") and the debtor's monthly construction industry applied for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures to the Suwon District Court on February 8, 201, and the above court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on March 17, 201, and the rehabilitation plan was approved on October 26, 201, and the rehabilitation procedure is currently in progress, and the plaintiff is appointed as the administrator of the debtor's monthly construction industry on the date the rehabilitation procedure commenced.

B. In the rehabilitation procedure of the debtor's monthly construction industry on April 22, 2011, the date the rehabilitation procedure commenced on March 17, 2011, the debtor's monthly construction industry as of March 17, 201, the defendant reported 66,68 shares issued by the debtor as collateral of each of the above claims, assessed the total amount of KRW 4,372,675,412 won (=666,686,686,6866,68,6865,6865,686,6865,68,6865,68, 200 as at the time of the debtor's monthly construction industry as at March 17, 201, as at the time when the debtor's monthly construction industry decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure, and calculated the total amount of collateral as at each of the above claims at KRW 25,51,756,685,659,695,675,27.

In addition, the defendant reported the total amount of KRW 1,201,186,140 as rehabilitation security right, while the non-determined indemnity claim amounting to KRW 1,201,186,140 according to the defect repair liability of the Dadmon apartment apartment in the Dan Chang-dong River was also secured by the defect security term deposit certificate.

C. There was no objection against the Defendant’s report on the Defendant’s rehabilitation security right during the period of inspection of the rehabilitation claim and the rehabilitation security right against the debtor’s monthly construction industry.