The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 532,180,00 per annum from March 19, 2014 to January 28, 2015.

On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) determined that electrical construction works among the budgetary extension works for the Japanese plant sector in Chungcheongnam-do, 941, Jinnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Dayang (hereinafter “Dongyang”); (b) KRW 660,00,000 for construction cost; and (c) from April 22, 2013 to October 31, 2013 for the construction period, the Plaintiff supplied sewage as of October 31, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant electrical construction”). The Plaintiff and the Dongyang agreed to pay the cost of the instant electrical construction within 60 days from the date of completion of the inspection if they passed the inspection on the part of the period of time once a month in the said construction contract.

On September 30, 2013, the Eastyang filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gohap186, and received a decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures from the above court on October 17, 2013, and the Defendant was appointed as the administrator.

While the Plaintiff was performing construction work under the instant construction contract, as seen above, the construction was suspended from September 30, 2013 upon filing an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures, and the construction has not been resumed until now.

At least on January 17, 2014, the defendant completed a preliminary examination on the part executed by the plaintiff, and reached an agreement between the plaintiff and the 532,180,000 won to determine the amount of the final construction work.

[Ground of recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 3, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, and the facts of recognition as to the purport of the whole pleadings, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay from January 17, 2014 after the lapse of 60 days from January 17, 2014 when the defendant completed an inspection as to the part of the flag.

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost of the instant work constitutes a rehabilitation claim, which is a property claim arising from the cause before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and the Plaintiff also constitutes a rehabilitation claim on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost of the instant work is a property claim arising from the cause before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures.