1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s debtor is a limited liability company, based on the counterclaim that the court changed on a exchange basis.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. In the first instance trial, the rehabilitation debtor filed a complaint against the defendant and the claim for construction cost together, and the defendant filed a counterclaim against the rehabilitation debtor to return the contract bond and unjust enrichment.

B. The first instance court partly accepted the part of the principal claim, dismissed the claim for construction cost, and partly accepted the counterclaim.

C. The Plaintiff appealed only against the obligor. The Plaintiff, upon receiving a decision on commencement of rehabilitation proceedings among the instant litigation proceedings, took over the obligor’s status in the lawsuit, and expanded the claim for the portion of the claim for construction price among the claims for the principal lawsuit.

Meanwhile, in the trial of the party, the defendant changed the claim for the contract deposit from the counterclaim to the claim seeking confirmation of rehabilitation claim against the rehabilitation debtor, and withdrawn the lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment from the other claimant for the counterclaim.

Accordingly, the part of the counterclaim claim in the judgment of the court of first instance became null and void.

E. Therefore, the part of the claim against the plaintiff among the main claim, the claim for construction cost including the part of the claim against the plaintiff among the main claim, the expanded part in this court, and the counterclaim that has been changed in exchange in this court is subject to the judgment of this court, and thus,

2. Basic facts

(a) The construction period (cost) fire-fighting equipment purchase and installation works, which was concluded on March 24, 2015 through March 25, 2015 through February 28, 2016, for which the term “the construction period (cost) fire-fighting equipment purchase and installation works,” which had been contracted from the K-dong Development Co., Ltd., the Defendant, and the debtor for rehabilitation, for the total sum of 1,601,80,000 (1,601,80,000,000 from April 7, 2015 to February 28, 2016, to April 859, 200,000 from April 7, 2015 to February 28, 2016) under a contract with the K-dong Development (State) for fire-fighting equipment installation and electrical construction (hereinafter “the instant construction”).

(2) The Defendant subcontracted the following contents to the Defendant: