1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following determination as to this case, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Whether the principle of liquidation value guarantee is violated or not, the plaintiff received a certain amount of dividends in the case of the plaintiff's liquidation in the case of the plaintiff's liquidation. The plaintiff asserts that in the rehabilitation procedure, the result of failure to receive dividends occurs, and therefore, it is contrary to the principle of liquidation

On the other hand, the principle of liquidation value guarantee means that the repayment method under the rehabilitation plan must be the content of repayment no less favorable than the repayment to each creditor when the debtor's business is liquidated (hereinafter "debtor Rehabilitation Act"), and the plaintiff asserts that the amount of repayment to be paid is greater than the amount of distribution under the rehabilitation plan of this case, but it is difficult to view that the amount of payment to be paid when the plaintiff, not the person entitled to preferential payment, is more than 6% of the amount of distribution under the rehabilitation plan of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. According to the instant rehabilitation plan, the Plaintiff asserts that according to the principle of equality, a person who supplies goods subject to value-added tax among the same rehabilitation creditors is not reimbursed from the debtor according to the above rehabilitation plan, but who supplies goods to which value-added tax is not applicable, the above rehabilitation plan is not applicable, and thus, the amount of reimbursement according to the repayment ratio of the rehabilitation plan is to be reimbursed. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the principle of equality (Article 218

However, as seen earlier, as long as the plaintiff has received a bad debt tax credit, the corresponding amount of profit shall be the same.