2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 9, 2011, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking payment of service fees under the Convention between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on August 29, 2005 against the Howon Unemployment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Hawon Unemployment”).

On October 23, 2013, the first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff appealed against this.

B. After that, on March 18, 2015, the Cheongju District Court 2015 Gohap1 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”), the rehabilitation procedure for the Cheongwon unemployment commenced (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”), and the Defendant was appointed as a custodian.

C. On September 14, 2015, the Defendant filed an application to resume the instant lawsuit pursuant to Article 59(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

2. Determination:

A. According to Articles 59(1), 118, and 131 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, when a decision is rendered to commence rehabilitation procedures, the legal proceedings about the debtor’s property shall be suspended, and the rehabilitation claims, such as property claims arising prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures or damages incurred due to nonperformance after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, shall not be exercised outside the rehabilitation procedures, including repayment without following the provisions of the rehabilitation plan, except as otherwise provided in special provisions.

In such a case, if a rehabilitation creditor has an objection against a claim filed as a rehabilitation claim with the rehabilitation court and any interested person raises an objection against the claim, he/she shall take over the lawsuit as the other party (Article 172(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act), and amend the purport of the claim by seeking the confirmation of the rehabilitation claim.

Meanwhile, such legal doctrine is reasonable to deem that the same applies to cases where a debtor takes over the proceedings interrupted based on Article 59(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

(b) above;