물품대금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The summary of the case is the case where the plaintiff who supplied the underground pumps to the rehabilitation company seeks payment of 189,808,000 won for the unpaid goods.
We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio by determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit.
According to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, any act extinguishing rehabilitation claims, such as repayment, repayment, etc., without following the provisions of the rehabilitation plan, shall not be performed after the rehabilitation procedures commence (Article 131); when it is decided to grant authorization for the rehabilitation plan, the rights of rehabilitation creditors, rehabilitation secured creditors, shareholders and equity right holders shall be altered according to the rehabilitation plan (Article 252(1)); and the entry in the table of rehabilitation creditors or the table of rehabilitation secured creditors, of rights recognized according to the rehabilitation plan, based on any rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right, has the same effect as a final
(Article 255(1). In full view of the above provisions, rehabilitation creditors are entitled to receive rehabilitation claims according to the provisions of the rehabilitation plan while the rehabilitation procedure is in progress, and there is no benefit to claim the implementation of the rehabilitation claim or the confirmation thereof, as a rehabilitation creditor, while the rehabilitation procedure is in progress.
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da63 Decided April 9, 1991). The case was returned to the instant case, health class, and rehabilitation company’s order was issued on January 20, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gohap100205, and the fact that the Plaintiff reported the instant goods-price claim to the rehabilitation court on February 9, 2015 that the Defendant reported the instant goods-price claim to the rehabilitation court as rehabilitation claim was confirmed by the trial court. The fact that the rehabilitation plan regarding the rehabilitation claim including the Plaintiff’s goods-price was authorized on May 15, 2015 is significant in this court.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it seeks the implementation of a rehabilitation claim separate from the above rehabilitation plan, since there is no benefit of lawsuit.