2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

A. The defendant is a company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling packing materials by making D of the Sound Group of Chungcheongbuk-gun as its principal office location.

On September 16, 2009, the Plaintiff established a company with the purpose of manufacturing and selling the pelb boxes, processing business, etc., and the employees retired from the Defendant at the Defendant’s place of business.

B. On September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply raw and secondary materials from the Defendant and produce products at the Defendant’s workplace, and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff for the cost of processing equivalent to 8.5% of the product value (hereinafter “instant contract for processing”).

C. On November 3, 2009, the Defendant filed an application for rehabilitation procedures with the Cheongju District Court 2009 Joint17, and received the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures on November 30, 2009 from the above court, and received the authorization to commence rehabilitation procedures on August 9, 2010.

On November 30, 2009, at the time of the commencement of the above rehabilitation procedure, the above court decided that the defendant's custodian E should obtain the permission of the court in the case of "the act of entering into a contract or bearing obligations, such as gift, sale, exchange, loan for consumption, lease, employment, contract for work, delegation, deposit, etc., in which the disbursement of the amount of money exceeding ten million won is expected," and "the act of entering into a contract or bearing obligations, such as the act of donation, transaction, exchange, loan for consumption, employment, entrustment, delegation, etc. (1.e.

On April 2011, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to increase the rate of the payment of the pre-processed cost under the instant contract to 10.5% of the processed product value.

hereinafter referred to as the "instant increase agreement"

(2) The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to pay the cost of processing the fee calculated by 10.5% from April 201 to April 2012, and the Defendant’s custodian paid the cost of processing the fee to the Plaintiff with the permission of the court every month.

E. Meanwhile, on August 16, 2011, the above court changed the Defendant’s administrator to F.

On May 2012, there was a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the ratio of the computation of the processing cost, and the Defendant on June 4, 2012.