1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

In the distribution procedure of the Seoul Central District Court C, the above court on April 2010.

1. After remanding, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company D did not have any claim against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution of this case seeking correction of the instant distribution schedule, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing all the Plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal by expanding the purport of the claim, and the Defendant also appealed, and the first instance court prior to the remanded the Plaintiff in full favor of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed on the ground that there is no benefit in the appeal and thus, the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal was unlawful. However, the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal was dismissed by deeming the Plaintiff’s appeal as an incidental appeal for expanding the purport

Therefore, only the Defendant appealed on the part against the Defendant in the judgment before remanding. The Supreme Court rendered a judgment of the first instance court prior to remand that “the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.” However, as seen earlier, the purport of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in the instant case where only the Defendant appealed, should be reversed the part against the Defendant among the judgment of the lower court, and the said part is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. Reversal and remand the case.

Therefore, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment before remanding, that is, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment before remanding, which dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and that dismissed the incidental appeal, are separately decided by the judgment of remanding. Thus, the subject of the judgment by the court of the first instance after remanding is limited to

2. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 25, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 to 6, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22 and 3, and witness K of the first instance trial and some testimony of M.

Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”)’s claims KS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SK Construction”) is a stock company on December 29, 2005.