The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff’s “right to claim the return of the paid construction price” constituted a priority claim as unjust enrichment claim established after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to rehabilitation claims and public-interest claims.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court as to the second ground of appeal, the lower court determined that the instant agreement was merely a specific plan to complete construction works under the instant contract without interruption in circumstances where it was difficult for the Defendant to continue construction works due to the Defendant’s circumstances, and cannot be deemed an agreement separate from the instant contract. Therefore, at the time of commencement of rehabilitation proceedings against the Defendant, the instant contract constitutes a bilateral contract under an executory condition, and the right to indemnity arising between the contracting parties in relation to the performance of the instant contract should also be deemed a priority claim as a claim based on the instant contract, unless the Defendant’s custodian did not express his/

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the legal nature of the agreement of this case.