1. As to the receiver B of the debtor rehabilitation company, which is the taking-off of the lawsuit against the defendant Gyeongnam Company.

1. The court's reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows: (a) whether the lawsuit on the part of the claim for damages for delay against the defendant Kim Jong-nam Enterprise is legitimate and as to the new argument at the trial of the plaintiff; and (b) not to partially modify or add it, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of

The 2nd 17th 17th 2nd 17th 2nd 2nd 17th 2nd 2nd 17th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 3rd 4th 8th 5th 5th 8th 5th 5th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 9, 71, 96th 9, 92, 14th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd .

The 6th to 4th of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:

4) Meanwhile, the instant project was not normally carried out due to the financial crisis and legal management of construction investors in the consortium around September 2008, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation in fact terminated the instant project agreement, etc. around September 2015.

The following is added to the 6th instance judgment of the first instance court. The decision was rendered on April 7, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap10070, when the decision was pending on April 7, 2015 to commence the rehabilitation procedure for the Gyeongnam Company, and the 6th instance judgment of the first instance court was filed by the defendant Kim Nam-nam Company.