The plaintiffs.

A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The Debtor B’s receiver B, who is the taking-over of the lawsuit by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

(2) The Defendant Company violated the right of reproduction among the Plaintiffs’ author’s property rights by illegally reproducing the Plaintiffs’ programs for Defendant Company’s work. Defendant Company is liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for damages incurred by Defendant B, its representative director, in the course of performing his/her duties pursuant to Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act. (2) Defendant Company did not report the Plaintiffs’ damage claim (right to claim) against Defendant Company as a rehabilitation claim until the decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan regarding Defendant Company was made, and the said Plaintiffs’ claim was not indicated in the list of rehabilitation creditors in the

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Company was forfeited under Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Company is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

B. (1) Determination 1) The term “Immunity” under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act means, although the debtor continues to exist, it is impossible to compel the debtor to perform his/her obligation. Accordingly, when a decision to grant immunity to the debtor in bankruptcy becomes final and conclusive, the claim exempted from liability would lose the ability to file a lawsuit for which the ordinary claim has been filed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). 2) In light of the following circumstances that are comprehensively considered in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 11, and 13 (including each number), Article 251 (Exemption of Rehabilitation Claims, etc.) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.