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

Seoul Rehabilitation Court on August 11, 2017 2016 Mada10078.

1. The reasons why the court has stated this part of the underlying facts are stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). On April 10th of the first instance judgment, “B from the date of the first instance judgment to the date of the special examination” was “B” and the said court did not make a decision to dismiss the instant subsequent report, and completed the investigation into the said rehabilitation security right for which the subsequent report was filed on June 21, 2016 by opening a special inspection date. The administrator Q Q is subject to the said special inspection date.

The fourth and fourth half of the judgment of the first instance court "a change to a rehabilitation security right" shall be made to "a change to a rehabilitation security right".

2. Summary of parties' arguments;

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

Since the ratio of the Plaintiff’s loan principal to the Plaintiff’s loan principal to B is about 13.1%, the amount of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security right should also be about 13.1% of the total amount of 20 rehabilitation secured creditors’ rehabilitation security rights. In light of the amount of other rehabilitation secured creditors’ rehabilitation security rights already confirmed, the amount of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security rights should be KRW 2,615,241,272 of the amount of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation security rights.

However, the plaintiff did not reduce the purport of the claim despite the above assertion.

B. Defendant 1’s completion report of this case is within the reporting period for reasons for which the Plaintiff cannot be held responsible.