The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Any rehabilitation creditor who intends to participate in rehabilitation procedures pursuant to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") shall report rehabilitation claims (Article 148 (1) of the Act); when an objection is raised against any reported rehabilitation claims, all objectors may file an application with the court for the final claim inspection judgment (Article 170 (1) of the Act) with all objectors as other parties (Article 170 (1) of the Act); and anyone who is dissatisfied with such judgment may file an objection against the final claim inspection judgment

(Article 171 (1) of the Act: Provided, That where any lawsuit on rehabilitation claims is pending at the time rehabilitation procedures commence, any rehabilitation creditor shall report the rehabilitation claims and when any objection is raised to the reported rehabilitation claims, all of the objectors shall take over the litigation procedures as other parties to the lawsuit.

(1) Article 172(1) of the Act provides that “Where a rehabilitation creditor files a lawsuit seeking the performance of a rehabilitation claim against an objector of the rehabilitation claim after the rehabilitation procedures commence, or where a rehabilitation creditor, who is not pending in a lawsuit on the rehabilitation claim at the time that the rehabilitation procedures commence, files a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the rehabilitation claim in lieu of going through the procedures provided for in Articles 170

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da10310 Decided May 26, 201). In the instant case, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, the fact that a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures was rendered against the Defendant on October 27, 2016 under the Changwon District Court 2016Da10046, Oct. 27, 2016 can be acknowledged. However, the fact that the instant lawsuit was served on the Defendant on November 3, 2017, and the lawsuit was pending is apparent.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is inappropriate to continue the lawsuit after the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure.