1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

When a decision to authorize a rehabilitation plan is made pursuant to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), any right of rehabilitation creditors, etc. is modified according to the rehabilitation plan (Article 252(1)); and any debtor, except any right recognized pursuant to the rehabilitation plan or the rehabilitation plan under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, is exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights (Article 251); and any entry of the list of rehabilitation creditors or the list of rehabilitation secured creditors, which is relating to any right recognized pursuant to the rehabilitation plan based on any rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right

(Article 255(1). In addition, the compulsory execution may be carried out according to the table of rehabilitation creditors after the rehabilitation procedures are completed (Article 255(2)), and even if the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures is confirmed after the rehabilitation procedures are completed, if the debtor fails to raise an objection to such rights on the rehabilitation claim inspection date or the special inspection date, the entry of the table of rehabilitation creditors in the table of rehabilitation creditors is still the same as the final

(Article 292(1). Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 292(1) and evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant was ordered to commence rehabilitation proceedings on October 12, 2016 upon filing an application for rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court 2016dan10147, and the service payment claim claimed by the Plaintiff was entered in the list of rehabilitation creditors; thereafter, the Seoul Central District Court issued the rehabilitation plan approval order on March 13, 2017; and the fact that the said rehabilitation plan approval order became final and conclusive around that time.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's service payment claim of this case constitutes a claim that occurred before the decision is made to commence the above rehabilitation procedure against the defendant.