1. The following modifications are made to the final inspection judgment of the court 2017 POCD 43.

The plaintiff is against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 1, 2010, the Defendant borrowed each of the loans of KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff, KRW 49 million on September 24, 2010, KRW 310 million on September 24, 2010, KRW 300 million on November 26, 2010 (hereinafter “instant loan”). ① Factory site in Gwangju-si, KRW 899 square meters on the above ground, ② Factory site in Seoul-si, ② Factory site in 899 square meters on the above ground, ② Factory D, E-dong, 3F river, KRW 132 square meters on the above ground, ④ 93 square meters on G road, ⑤ H 86 square meters on the H river, ⑤ A river 86 square meters on the automatic packaging system (I production), and 7 main crushing (1 J manufacturing), KRW 200, KRW 99, 90 on November 26, 2010.

(1) The sum of (1) through (5) the sum of “land and buildings in this case”, and (6) through (0) the sum of them shall be “the machinery and equipment in this case”

On December 15, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with this Court 2016dan10050, and this Court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures for the Defendant on March 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff reported KRW 391,501,923 as rehabilitation security rights in the aforementioned rehabilitation procedures.

As a result of the assessment of the collateral value of the instant land and buildings, the Defendant: (a) placed 103,461,610 won as a rehabilitation security right; (b) denied the rehabilitation security right due to excess of the collateral value; and (c) decided as a rehabilitation claim.

C. On June 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the competent court for a final inspection of rehabilitation security rights to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security right against the Defendant is KRW 391,501,923,” and the said court rendered a decision on July 13, 2018, stating that “the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security right against the Defendant does not exist” (hereinafter “instant decision”) on the ground that there is no evidence verifying the value of the subject matter claimed by the Plaintiff, on the grounds that there is no evidence verifying the value of the subject matter claimed by the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, and in the case of Gap evidence 1 through 17, each number shall be granted.