A. The reasons for this part of this Court are as follows, except for the reasons for appeal, from the third to fourth to 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. From the third half of the first instance judgment, the first half of the year 2012, “from the second half of the year 2012” is deemed to be “from the second half of the year 2012.”

2. Determination as to the main safety defense of Defendant Yang Young-young

A. The gist of the instant safety defense is that the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for damages arising from the instant construction works. As such, the Plaintiff’s damage claim against Defendant Yangyang-young, which the Plaintiff asserted, is a rehabilitation claim arising from the cause prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, but has not been reported as a rehabilitation claim in the instant rehabilitation procedures, and thus, was exempted from liability pursuant to Article 118 subparag. 1 and Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part that the plaintiff sought damages from tort against the defendant defendant Yang Young-young is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

B. (1) Determination 1) The rehabilitation claim under Article 118 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to a claim on property arising from the cause prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, such as an expression of intent, etc., and even if the content of the claim is not specifically confirmed, if the major cause of the occurrence was preserved prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Da109388, Apr. 23, 2015; 2014Da82439, Nov. 25, 2016). 3-1, 200 evidence No. 3-2, 2, and 4, and the entire purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the appraiser C of the first instance trial, each of the following facts is acknowledged.

① The instant blasting work had been continued for 234 days during the period from October 15, 201 to June 29, 2012.