1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the administrator A of the defendant rehabilitation debtor Samdo Construction Corporation is reversed, and this part is applicable.

1. In the Plaintiff’s case of tort as to the grounds of appeal on the Defendant’s design engineering, substitute construction, or damages due to nonperformance, the determination of the fact or the ratio of limitation on liability for comparative negligence is within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that, in light of the cause and contribution of the instant defects, and the role of the contracting parties, etc., as indicated in the reasoning of the lower judgment, the ratio of liability of the contracting parties is 50%, the Plaintiff’s design, the Defendant Drawing Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Drawing”) as the supervisor, 26%, and 12%, respectively, of the Defendant Substitute Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Alternative Construction”) as the contractor, and the rehabilitation obligor, and the rehabilitation obligor, as the contractor, based on the adopted evidence.

Examining all circumstances, such as the causes of the instant defect in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s liability ratio is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation

2. The judgment of the court below on the part of the judgment of the court below as to "A manager of the rehabilitation debtor C" (hereinafter "the defendant manager").

A. Rehabilitation claims referred to in Article 118 subparagraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) refer to a property claim based on the cause of the occurrence of a claim prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, such as expression of intent, etc., and even if the content of a claim is not specifically confirmed, if the major cause of the occurrence is preserved prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures

Supreme Court Decision 200