1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the administrator B of the rehabilitation debtor corporation B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendant corporation.

1. ex officio whether the lawsuit against the receiver B of the rehabilitation debtor B is lawful, the lawsuit filed against the receiver C on the premise that the plaintiff is still undergoing rehabilitation procedures for the rehabilitation debtor B is unlawful, on the ground that the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for the rehabilitation procedure for the rehabilitation debtor B was abolished on October 18, 2013, and that the decision to discontinue rehabilitation procedures for the rehabilitation procedure for the rehabilitation debtor B, which was rendered on October 18, 2013 by the Jung-Government District Court 2013.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B

A. On October 10, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction contract amounting to KRW 75,00,000 was paid by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) upon receipt of a contract for the installation of D-based D-based loan from Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and completion of construction by January 10, 2012, and the Plaintiff incurred KRW 75,00,000.

The plaintiff is a list of the attached Form owned by the defendant company with the claim for the above construction cost as the secured claim.

2. Since real estate is invited, the defendant company is seeking confirmation that there is a civil or commercial lien against the plaintiff.

B. In the judgment of this court, a person who possesses another person's goods or securities has the right to retain such goods or securities until repayment is made, if the claim created with respect to such goods or securities is due (Article 320(1) of the Civil Act). If a claim arising from commercial activities between merchants is due and due, the obligee may retain the goods or securities owned by the obligor due to his/her commercial activities with respect to the obligor until repayment is made (Article 58 of the Commercial Act). If the person who claims the right of retention does not hold any claim any longer, the right of retention is not established to seek the preferential satisfaction of the claim.

In this regard, the Korean Government District Court on July 24, 2012, the plaintiff applied for a payment order against the defendant company and applied for a payment order to the defendant company.