beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 17, 2011, Defendant B issued a promissory note of KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff. On the same day, according to the commission between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, Defendant B’s consent to compulsory execution under Article 220 of the deed of 2011 (hereinafter “certificate of No. 1 Promissory Notes”).
(2) On July 29, 2013, Defendant B issued a promissory note of KRW 170 million to the Plaintiff. On the same day, according to the commission of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, the Promissory Notes No. 951 with respect to the said Promissory Notes (hereinafter referred to as “No. 2 Promissory Notes No. 1”) was written to the effect that the compulsory execution of the said Promissory Notes No. 951 was accepted.
3) On August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained the order of seizure and collection against KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, excluding the specified amount of the deposit to be preferentially paid by Defendant B, from among the claim for the refund of the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit of Defendant B, from among the claim for the deposit for the refund of the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit to Defendant B, the Plaintiff submitted a written statement to the executing court that the Plaintiff would pay the amount excluding the unpaid amount, etc.
5) Defendant B received a suspension order of compulsory execution based on individual rehabilitation claims on March 13, 2014, and submitted it to the executing court on March 18, 2014, and applied for suspension of execution. B) Defendant B filed an application for individual rehabilitation with Suwon District Court No. 2014Da31036, March 4, 2014; Defendant B entered the Plaintiff’s obligation to the creditor’s list as KRW 170 million (the amount of promissory notes stated in the No. 2 Promissory Notes).
2) On March 13, 2014, the rehabilitation court suspended compulsory execution based on individual rehabilitation claims until the decision on the application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures was made, and on January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff rendered a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures. 3) On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff against Defendant B.