1. The Plaintiff’s Sung-friendly Construction Co., Ltd., the rehabilitation obligor, the lawsuit taking over the lawsuit against the Defendant Sung-friendly Construction Co., Ltd.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2008, the Seongdong-si Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) contracted the “D apartment house construction work” from Y Kimpo-si Co., Ltd., Ltd., and subcontracted the construction of reinforced concrete among the said new construction works to Defendant two new construction works, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant two new construction works”).

B. On February 20, 2009, Defendant B&D subcontracted the construction of safety facilities, supply of materials, and installation works (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the above reinforced concrete construction works to Seob Co., Ltd., and the Seob Co., Ltd had the Plaintiff install and dismantle a network for the prevention of abortion.

C. On September 18, 2009, at around 13:25, the Plaintiff, among the construction works of newly constructed apartment units, was in the process of dismantling a single-salone-story 1, which was installed outside the third floor apartment units on the ground of 107-dong 1, among the construction works of newly constructed apartment units, engaged in cutting off the body from the inside of apartment units to the outside of apartment units, and was in the process of cutting off the fruit, which is near the apartment unit, and was the fall down with the floor, resulting in the injury, such as blood transfusion, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

On the other hand, the rehabilitation procedure was commenced on December 24, 2014 by Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gohap100184 with respect to the non-party company, and B was appointed as the administrator of the company of the Debtor Rehabilitation Association.

(2) The following facts: (a) No dispute exists on the grounds of recognition; (b) No. 2, 3, 4, 19 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) No. 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 17; (d) No. 24; (e) No. 5; (e) No. 1, No. 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 17; (b) No. 24; (c) No. 1 of E; (d) witness E’s testimony; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. As to the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit by the Plaintiff against the Defendant custodian ex officio, on the part exceeding KRW 23,00,000.