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

The following facts are recognized by the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 13, or are obvious to the records in this case:

A. The treatment chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “treatment chemical”) is a company for which the decision of rehabilitation was rendered on January 16, 2009 by Cheongju District Court 2008hap9.

B. On March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that there was KRW 50,547,728 of the attempted amount of goods for treatment chemicals as an enterprise that supplied paint, etc. to treatment chemicals, and filed an application for payment order against treatment chemicals on the price of goods, but the above payment order case was implemented as the instant lawsuit.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant filed an objection against the Plaintiff’s claim amount of the aforementioned goods at the subsequent completion date reported in the rehabilitation procedure of treatment chemical (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”) on August 24, 2009, and at the special inspection date of rehabilitation claims, filed an objection against the Defendant on September 15, 2009.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

The defendant asserted that the lawsuit of this case brought after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure prior to the date of filing the lawsuit of this case against the treatment chemical was unlawful, and that the plaintiff asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful, and that the lawsuit of this case was lawful since the plaintiff filed an objection against the plaintiff in the rehabilitation procedure of this case against the defendant in this case after the plaintiff filed an objection against the plaintiff in this case under Article 172 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "Act").

However, according to the above provisions, a property claim that occurred before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures against a rehabilitation company falls under a rehabilitation claim (Article 118 subparagraph 1 of the Act), a rehabilitation claim shall exercise its rights only in accordance with the procedures such as a report prescribed by the Act (Article 148 of the Act), a final inspection judgment (Article 170 of the Act), and a lawsuit raising objections thereto (Article 171 (1) of the Act), etc. When a decision is made to authorize the rehabilitation plan, a debtor shall be exempted from its responsibility for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights (Article 251 of the Act), and a separate lawsuit is not allowed against a debtor without taking such procedures (Article 251 of the Act). In addition, only if a lawsuit is pending at the commencement of rehabilitation procedures at the time of the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the principal decision may be made through a lawsuit acceptance procedure (Article 172 (1) of the Act).

As to the instant case, the claim for the price of goods for health class and treatment chemical was caused before the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure, and it constitutes a rehabilitation claim. As seen earlier, the claim for the payment order prior to the implementation of the instant lawsuit on March 2, 2009, which was after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure on January 16, 2009, was decided on January 2, 2009. Thus, the instant case is not a case where the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for objection to the Plaintiff’s reported claim at the time of the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure, and the Defendant custodian raises an objection to the Plaintiff’s reported claim in the rehabilitation procedure pursuant to Articles 170 and 171 of the Act, and the existence or scope of the claim has to be disputed as the other party to the Defendant custodian through the final claim inspection judgment or its objection lawsuit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant who took over litigation procedures with the defendant's administrator as the other party is unlawful after filing a performance lawsuit against the treatment chemical separately after the rehabilitation decision is rendered.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Lee Jae-hoon