1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that the construction business entity is stipulated in Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry at the end of the matters, which read “around that time” as “ January 2, 2013,” as “the third part of the first instance judgment’s reasoning.”

The reason for the judgment of the first instance is the same as the reason for the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the evidence No. 17 to the [based ground for recognition], and this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On February 5, 2013, the Defendant’s assertion 1) filed a report on the remainder payment claim of the subcontracted project in this case as a rehabilitation claim against the Ntex Korea in the rehabilitation procedure against Ntex Korea on February 5, 2013, and on September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy claim against Ntex Korea as a bankruptcy claim. As such, the Plaintiff exercises the subcontractor’s right to the remainder payment claim of the subcontracted project in this case in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the instant claim is unlawful. (2) Article 14(1)1 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “Fair Transactions Act”) provides that the subcontractor’s claim against the subcontractor is not closely related to the subcontractor’s subcontract payment claim against the subcontractor, on the other hand, that the subcontractor’s claim against the subcontractor against the subcontractor is not closely related to the subcontractor’s order owner’s claim against the subcontractor.