1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff's successor.

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the lawsuit.

According to Articles 584, 347(1) and 406 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, after a decision to commence individual rehabilitation has been rendered, the debtor shall exercise the right to set aside and the court may order the debtor to exercise the right to set aside, at the request of the creditor or rehabilitation commissioner or ex officio. When a lawsuit filed by any individual rehabilitation creditor is pending at the time the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures is made, the lawsuit procedures shall be interrupted until the takeover of the lawsuit is completed

In light of the purport of these regulations and the nature of individual rehabilitation procedures, which are collective debt settlement procedures, and the purpose of avoidance power, after the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures has been rendered, the debtor shall exercise the avoidance power aiming at equal repayment to all creditors, and the debtor shall not file a lawsuit seeking revocation against the creditor, which is aimed at preserving the individual debtor's liability for the individual claim, on the premise that individual execution is individually enforced by individual rehabilitation creditors who are unable to receive repayment or require repayment of individual rehabilitation claims

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37141, Sept. 9, 2010). Therefore, when a creditor is already pending at the time the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures is rendered, as in the instant case, an obligor who is legally qualified to take over the lawsuit shall take over the lawsuit, and a debtor who takes over the lawsuit shall change the existing creditor revocation lawsuit to a lawsuit for avoidance.

Therefore, the personal rehabilitation debtor A, who is a public health department and the lawsuit administrator of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, should change the creditor's revocation claim against the defendant to the lawsuit of denial, but the lawsuit of this case was not changed to the lawsuit of denial until the date of closing argument of this case.

2. Conclusion, this case.