A. On December 19, 2011, the Defendant awarded a subcontract for the construction cost of KRW 2,172,50,000 (including value-added tax) and the construction period from December 19, 2011 to April 30, 201, for soundproof walls supply and installation works (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. On December 19, 201, ELM commenced rehabilitation procedures on December 10, 201, A, the administrator of A, the Plaintiff’s Debtor Rehabilitation Debtor, a corporation taking over the lawsuit of B, and completed rehabilitation procedures on September 17, 2014 after authorization was granted for the rehabilitation plan on May 19, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “A” in total, the contract amount of KRW 2,172,50,00 (including value-added tax) and the contract period from December 19, 201 to April 30, 201, re-subcontracted all of the instant construction work.

C. From March 25, 2012, Plaintiff A performed construction works for soundproofing walls; however, around May 18, 2012, Plaintiff A discontinued the instant construction works; thereafter, ELD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Thoste case”) and D re-subcontracted the instant construction works.

Plaintiff

A, on June 29, 2012, the Daegu District Court Decision 2012Kadan861, which was the claim claim amounting to KRW 385,672,324 against ELDM, was issued a decision to provisionally seize the claim for the proceeds of a building, such as soundproof walls (hereinafter referred to as “the claim subject to provisional seizure of this case”), which was held against the Defendant by ELDM (hereinafter referred to as “decision on provisional seizure of this case’s claim”). The decision on provisional seizure of this case’s claim was served on the Defendant on July 4, 2012.

E. On the other hand, around September 10, 2012, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 211,248,408, out of the instant claim for the construction payment against ELDM, to Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff C”) and notified ELM around October 19, 2012.

F. The plaintiff A filed a lawsuit claiming the construction cost of this case against ELM.