In the event that the rent for temporary materials has been overdue between D and D Co., Ltd. for at least 30 days, the rent for the temporary materials for construction has been agreed with D Co., Ltd. based on the H Association’s calculation based on I issued by H Association. Thus, it is difficult to view that the rehabilitation company and D Co., Ltd. were aware of the existence of the above agreement. Therefore, it is reasonable to apply the cost for the destruction of the temporary materials between the Plaintiff and D Co., Ltd. to the rehabilitation company on November 21, 2016 (the cost for the destruction of the temporary materials that the Plaintiff sent to the rehabilitation company on November 21, 2016). According to the above evidence, each of the unit cost for the destruction of the said temporary materials stated in the certificate of use of the temporary materials is as stated in the attached Table.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation claim against the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation company shall be damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 15, 2017 to the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case as indicated in the attached Table (where a rehabilitation creditor raises an objection against a claim reported by the administrator, etc., the lawsuit for confirmation of rehabilitation claims shall be filed with respect to the confirmation of the existence of the claim or its contents and seek the performance of all or part of the monetary obligation, and thus, the main text of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall not apply to cases where a judgment on the lawsuit for confirmation of rehabilitation claims is declared (see Supreme Court, Jan. 1, 2013).