대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.
3...
1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.
Article 603(1) and (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that in cases where a creditor recorded in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors fails to file an application for a final judgment on an individual rehabilitation claim within the objection period or has been rejected, a claim is confirmed as stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and where any confirmed individual rehabilitation claim is entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, such entry shall have the same effect as a final judgment on all of the individual rehabilitation creditors. Therefore, there is no benefit in a lawsuit to file
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in the Health Team and evidence Nos. 9 through 12 as to the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant received a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures in the Seoul Rehabilitation Court case No. 2017 Ma33066, Sept. 8, 2017, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Plaintiff stated a claim against the Defendant seeking the instant lawsuit in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and that the Plaintiff raised an objection within the objection period or did not change the instant lawsuit into the lawsuit for confirmation of individual rehabilitation claims, thereby, the fact that the list of individual rehabilitation creditors stating the Plaintiff’s claim is finalized and the decision to authorize the repayment plan was made
In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant becomes final and conclusive and seek the performance of individual rehabilitation claims indicated in the table of individual rehabilitation creditors, and thus there is no benefit in the lawsuit.
On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that his claim does not have the effect of immunity because it is a damage claim caused by the defendant's intentional tort.
However, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 10 to 12 and the whole pleadings, it is still against the defendant.