1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) concluded a contract for the instant building (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the owner of D and E-building (hereinafter “instant building”) in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) (hereinafter “instant building”) on May 30, 2013 (hereinafter “TT”) by setting the construction cost of KRW 440,000,000 for the changed use of the instant building (including value-added tax), June 1, 2013; and September 30, 2013 for the scheduled completion date of construction (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant totaling KRW 408,000,000, out of the construction price under the said contract.

C. On February 27, 2015, when the instant lawsuit was pending on February 27, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap10046, and received a decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures from the said court pursuant to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. On March 20, 2015, the Defendant was appointed as the administrator of the rehabilitation obligor, a trust construction company (hereinafter referred to as the “virative debtor construction company”) and another construction company (hereinafter referred to as “TT Construction”), and took over the instant legal proceedings.

Although the plaintiffs reported the claim claim of this case as a rehabilitation claim in the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the defendant denied the claim of this case on the ground that the lawsuit of this case is pending.

In addition, on December 15, 2015, there was a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) there is a defect due to the non-construction, the alteration construction, and the defective construction of the building in this case, and the total of KRW 60,565,591 is required as the defect repair cost. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' defect repair of KRW 60,565,591 as to the typical construction.