공사대금
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit that has been changed in exchange at the trial shall be dismissed;
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: “The Defendant” in the second 12th part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to “B” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and, in the third 17th part, following the third 3th 17th 17th 17th 201, “The decision of rehabilitation was rendered by the District Court of the Republic of Korea on November 11, 2014, and the Defendant deemed the custodian and the rehabilitation plan was approved on June 22, 2015.”
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion completed the construction project, which is the content of the instant contract, and completed the construction project under the additional construction contract concluded with the Defendant, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 220,00,00 and KRW 151,442,830, which is the contract price of the instant contract, to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff was paid KRW 223,10,000,000 from the Defendant, the Plaintiff was paid only KRW 148,342,830 ( KRW 220,00,000), the Plaintiff has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 151,442,830 ( KRW 223,10,00).
The above construction cost claim is a rehabilitation claim, and the confirmation is sought.
(However, the amount sought for confirmation is KRW 96,142,173 and damages for delay thereof). 3. Whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is lawful or not, 1) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “The Debtor Rehabilitation Act”).
(1) Article 118 Subparag. 1 refers to a claim on property, the cause of which arises prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, such as expression of intent, refers to a claim on property, which is based on the cause prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures. Thus, insofar as the cause of the occurrence of a claim is based on the cause prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, it is not specific or even if the cause of the occurrence of the claim arrives after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da14851, May 16, 2014). The main cause of the claim is sufficient if the major cause of the claim exists prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da8433