1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of loan claims against the Defendant ex officio.

Any property claim that accrues before the rehabilitation procedures commence for the debtor constitutes a rehabilitation claim (hereinafter referred to as the "Bankruptcy Act").

(1) Article 118 Subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, when it is decided to grant authorization for a rehabilitation plan, the rights of rehabilitation creditors are altered according to the rehabilitation plan (Article 252(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act); entry in the table of rehabilitation creditors on the rights recognized pursuant to the rehabilitation plan based on the rehabilitation claim has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment on the debtor and rehabilitation creditors at the time the decision to grant authorization for the rehabilitation plan is confirmed (Article 255(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act); and

(see Articles 292(2), 292, and 255(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, seeking the implementation of rehabilitation claims confirmed in the table of rehabilitation creditors is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

With respect to the instant case, the date on which the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against the Defendant for the payment of the Defendant was created on June 16, 2016. The Defendant filed an application for rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court 2013dan133 on June 4, 2013, which was after the said claim for loans was created, and the said court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation against the Defendant on June 21, 2013. The Plaintiff’s claim for loans was entered in the list of the Defendant’s rehabilitation creditors, and the Plaintiff’s objection was not raised during the filing period of the objection, or the Defendant’s objection was accepted during the filing period, the rehabilitation plan was approved by the assembly of related persons on December 9, 2013, and the fact that the rehabilitation procedure was abolished on the grounds that the Defendant failed to perform its repayment under the rehabilitation plan on March 18, 2016.