The appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's request for continuation of proceedings is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are the request for continuation of proceedings.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined. A.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 118 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) refers to a claim on property arising from the cause of the occurrence of a claim, such as declaration of intention, prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures. As long as the cause of the occurrence of a claim is based on the cause prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, it is not specific or even if the cause of the occurrence of a claim arrives after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da114851, May 16, 2014). The main cause of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84335, Nov. 29, 2012). In addition, rehabilitation claims include future claims stipulated under Article 138(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. In cases where a joint and several surety of the debtor performs joint and several liability obligations with repayment, etc. to a rehabilitation creditor who is the main creditor after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, in which such joint and several surety contract was concluded before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, if the joint and several surety contract was concluded prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the principal cause of the right to indemnity exists before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that

Meanwhile, the right to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair under Article 667(2) of the Civil Act exists concurrently with the right to claim remuneration, and thus, the right to claim damages is generally established when the damage occurs in reality by social norms. Thus, the right to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair is specifically established at the time when the repair becomes necessary

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da29448, Sept. 4, 2014). However, in the case of a contract for construction works, the construction works are already conducted.