All appeals are dismissed.

The request for continuation of proceedings by the requester for proceedings is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, and the first ground of appeal by the administrator of the Defendant Rehabilitation and Delivery Development Co., Ltd., and each of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant Self-Employed Automobile Sales Co., Ltd., the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that service payment claims based on the instant contract are divided by process, based on its stated reasoning. However, the lower court determined that the basic design service contract and the working design service contract among the instant contract are separate contracts,

In addition, the lower court determined, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that the Plaintiff’s duty to prepare approved books among the service duties under the instant contract and the duty to deliver books on the management ledger of buildings and the duty to supply books on the same price under bilateral contract

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the nature of the contract, the decentralization of the contract, non-performance

2. As to the grounds of appeal No. 2 of the Defendant Rehabilitation Debtor Treatment and Development Corporation and the Defendant Self-Employed Automobile Sales Corporation, the rehabilitation plan does not stipulate in the rehabilitation plan the provisions that affect the rights of public-interest creditors, such as reduction and exemption of claims with respect to public-interest claims, and even if such provisions were provided in the rehabilitation plan, the change of rights shall not extend to public-interest creditors unless they

(See Supreme Court Order 2005Da60 Decided January 20, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40349 Decided January 28, 2010, etc.).