1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The summary of the case is the case that the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the claim allowance judgment between the defendant and the rehabilitation security right of the plaintiff against the defendant by filing a lawsuit of objection against the final claim allowance judgment.

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio by determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit.

According to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, when any objection is raised with respect to rehabilitation security rights entered in the list of rehabilitation secured creditors or reported, all objectors may file an application with the court for the final claim inspection judgment (Article 170(1)), with all objectors as other parties (Article 170(1)), and any person dissatisfied with such judgment may file a lawsuit of demurrer with

(1) Article 171(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The plaintiff shall withdraw the application for the final claim inspection judgment and bear the costs of the application.” On September 23, 2013, the rehabilitation court rendered a ruling of recommending settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant on September 23, 2013, which provides that “The plaintiff shall withdraw the application for the final claim inspection judgment and bear the costs of the application.” On September 27, 2013, the plaintiff submitted a written objection on October 16, 2013, which was later than two weeks from the date the plaintiff received the notice of recommending settlement. The plaintiff failed to comply with the period of objection on June 10, 2014, on the ground that the date of designation for the final and conclusive period of objection was not stated in the period of objection, the date of objection for which the final and conclusive adjudication of the Seoul District Court was published on June 10, 2014, and the plaintiff shall be dismissed on September 14, 2014.”