2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on August 31, 2012, the Defendant’s administrator claimed the implementation of the instant subcontract through field supervision, etc.; (b) the Defendant’s custodian claimed the implementation of the instant subcontract in fact, as the instant claim for the construction cost was a bilateral contract under the state of non-performance; and (c) on September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant’s manager of confirmation as to whether the instant subcontract was cancelled or terminated, or whether the instant subcontract was implemented until the completion of all of the instant construction works; (d) however, insofar as the Defendant’s custodian did not choose the rescission or termination of the instant subcontract until the completion of the instant construction works, the Plaintiff’s claim for performance should be deemed to have been exercised; and (e) furthermore, the Defendant’s custodian claimed for the implementation of the instant subcontract through field supervision, etc. by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (the prime contractor). Therefore, the instant claim

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the construction cost of this case to the plaintiff regardless of the above rehabilitation procedure.

3. Determination

A. Article 119(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that “When the debtor and the other party to a bilateral contract have not yet completed the performance of the bilateral contract at the time rehabilitation procedures commence, the custodian may rescind or terminate the bilateral contract, or claim for the performance of the other party’s obligation after fulfilling the debtor’s obligation.” In the case of Article 119(2) of the same Act, the other party shall