1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Construction contract relationship between the Defendant and Pakistan is one between the Defendant and the Defendant. On February 16, 2010, the Defendant is the Pakistan-D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PD”) and the “PDD”

(C) Of the construction of Doese-ground D buildings outside of the city of eternity, the typology and sanitary instrument supply works (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) On January 24, 2011, the Defendant was granted a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures as Seoul Central District Court 2010 Ma151, and on July 1, 2011, the rehabilitation plan was decided on July 1, 2011. Under the rehabilitation procedure, the claim for construction payment of this case was KRW 105,84,808 (the claim for construction payment of this case, which was converted to KRW 108,800,000, which was converted to KRW 108,800,000, and interest KRW 8,64,808,000, which was converted to KRW 10,800,000, and the claim for construction payment of this case, which was converted to KRW 10,80,00).

3) Following the commencement of rehabilitation procedures against the Defendant, the instant construction contract with Pakistan was terminated. However, the Defendant’s remaining construction works among the instant construction works (hereinafter “additional construction works”) on May 30, 201.

In addition to the amount of KRW 108,00,000 for the original contract amount of KRW 72,000 for the construction cost, the amount equivalent to KRW 180,000 for the original contract amount shall be KRW 180,000 for the original contract amount. In concluding a subcontract again with D Building 924, the remainder of KRW 25,440,000 for the construction cost shall be paid as a substitute, and the remainder of KRW 25,40,000 for the construction cost shall be classified as a priority bond, and shall be paid first if the sale price is paid after the completion of the construction. However, the Defendant failed to perform the obligation under the subcontract, and the Defendant terminated the additional construction contract on October 28, 201, and concluded the construction directly from the half of November 21, 201 by purchasing the construction work including value-added tax.

B. On December 30, 201, the Plaintiff issued a provisional attachment order regarding the claim of KRW 32 million among the claims for the construction of this case against the Defendant, which is, Suwon District Court Decision No. 2011Kadan4290, Suwon District Court Decision No. 2011, Dec. 30, 201. This decision was served on the Defendant around that time.

C. The amount of seized claims by the defendant.