1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified in accordance with the process of litigation in the trial as follows:

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2.

1. According to Articles 584, 347(1) and 406 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, after a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures 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 are commenced, the lawsuit procedures shall be interrupted until the takeover of the lawsuit or the termination of the individual

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 creditor suit aiming at preserving individual claims on the premise that individual rehabilitation creditors who are unable to receive repayment or require repayment of individual rehabilitation claims stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors are subject to individual compulsory execution.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37141, Sept. 9, 2010). Therefore, when a creditor’s revocation lawsuit is pending at the time of commencement of the individual rehabilitation procedure, the debtor who is legally qualified to take over the lawsuit shall take over the lawsuit, and the debtor who takes over the lawsuit shall change the existing creditor’s revocation lawsuit into the lawsuit for avoidance.

On October 17, 2014, after the instant lawsuit was instituted, the Plaintiff was decided to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff on January 22, 2015, which was before the closing of argument in the first instance trial. While the Plaintiff taken over the instant lawsuit at the trial court, the fact that the instant lawsuit was not changed into a lawsuit for denial by the closing of argument in the instant case does not conflict between the parties or is apparent in the record.

Therefore, this is applicable.