2...

On September 24, 2013 from D (hereinafter “D”), the Plaintiff entered into a business takeover agreement with the effect that the Plaintiff will take over the assets of the ready-mixed factory located in E and F in KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “instant G business takeover agreement”), and that the Plaintiff would take over all assets of the ready-mixed factory located in H and six parcels of Won-si on September 26, 2013 (hereinafter “instant prime factory takeover agreement”). The Plaintiff concluded a business takeover agreement with the effect that the Plaintiff would take over all assets of the ready-mixed factory located in H and six parcels of Won-si (hereinafter “instant prime factory takeover agreement”).

(2) The court below held that on October 17, 2013, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation proceedings”) and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation proceedings”). D, on October 17, 2013, received a decision from the Seoul Central District Court to commence rehabilitation proceedings (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation proceedings”); and I, appointed as a custodian on April 15, 2015; and J appointed as a custodian on the same day, thereby taking over the instant proceedings.

Since then, on January 8, 2016, a new company was newly incorporated to transfer the rights and obligations with respect to the avoidance power lawsuit, etc. by dividing the company, according to the revision of the rehabilitation plan as of January 8, 2016, the company B was established by division from the above company, and it was transferred the rights and obligations related to the lawsuit in this case. On January 14, 2016, the defendant appointed as the administrator took over the lawsuit in this case.

(D) With respect to D and B, neither before nor after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure, nor after the division of the company (hereinafter “debtor”). The Plaintiff reported the rehabilitation claim in the instant rehabilitation procedure with the following contents. At the time of the obligor’s joint management, I and K denied the amount of the Plaintiff’s report on the rehabilitation claim.

G Accordingly, on January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff’s “the rehabilitation claim against the debtor is KRW 400 million for penalty, KRW 72,261,00 for damages, and KRW 4 billion for delay,” under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 Mada91 (2013 Mahap186).” The Plaintiff’s confirmation that the rehabilitation claim against the debtor is KRW 4 billion for public interest claim against the debtor is KRW 4 billion.