1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant asserted that the decision was made to commence the rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff, and thus only the administrator may file a lawsuit on the Plaintiff’s property, but the representative director filed the lawsuit in this case, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and thus, the safety defense

B. Determination 1) On June 17, 2013, the decision was rendered with respect to the Plaintiff, as the Gwangju District Court 2013 Gohap13, and on the same day, C was appointed as a custodian. Nevertheless, on May 18, 2017, the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed under the name of the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties or is apparent in the record. (2) When the decision was rendered to commence rehabilitation procedures, the authority to perform the debtor’s business, manage and dispose of the debtor’s assets shall be exclusive to the custodian (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

(1) Article 56(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (Article 78 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act). The instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage established on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff Company constitutes “the lawsuit concerning the debtor’s property” under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and thus, the instant lawsuit filed in the name of the Plaintiff, other than the administrator, is unlawful, as it is filed by a person without standing to

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the conclusion of this case is unlawful.