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

Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016 Mada10080 dated August 11, 2017

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

On June 21, 2016, the first instance court’s 4th 6th 6th e.g. “B-the special inspection date” completed the investigation procedure for the said rehabilitation security right that was subsequently completed by opening a special inspection date on June 21, 2016. The administrator S in B shall be dismissed from the said special inspection date to “the said special inspection date,” and the said 12th e.g. “the rehabilitation security right” to “the rehabilitation security right.”

2. The assertion;

A. Plaintiff 1) Inasmuch as the court held a special inspection date for the instant subsequent report and conducted the claim inspection procedure, it cannot be asserted on the ground that the Plaintiff’s report did not meet the requirements for subsequent supplementation in the final claim inspection judgment. 2) The instant rehabilitation plan under B provides that rehabilitation secured creditors shall be reimbursed in proportion to the ratio of rehabilitation security rights. As such, the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security right should be determined that the “ratio of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security right to the total amount of rehabilitation security rights to the Plaintiff’s loan principal out of the total amount of the loan principal of the creditors in the workout program” is the same as the

Since the ratio of the Plaintiff’s leased principal out of the leased principal of the creditors’ loans to B is about 0.6%, the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security rights should also be about 0.6% out of the total rehabilitation security rights of 20 rehabilitation secured creditors. Considering the rehabilitation security rights established between the 11 rehabilitation secured creditors, the rehabilitation security rights to be returned to the Plaintiff should be determined as KRW 119,635,604.

B. Since Defendant 1 B’s administrator raises an objection to the legitimacy of the instant subsequent completion report on the special inspection date, the Defendant, who is the taking-over, may contest the legitimacy of the instant subsequent completion report in the final claim inspection judgment.

The Plaintiff is responsible for the instant subsequent completion report.