1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate or not falls under a bankruptcy claim (see Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and a bankruptcy creditor is prohibited from exercising his/her right by means of a declaration of bankruptcy, and only after participating in the bankruptcy procedure can obtain the satisfaction of the claim.

(See Article 424 of the same Act). However, the corporation B was declared bankrupt on February 23, 2012 in the Central District Court 2012Hau2 case, and the defendant was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy on the same day, and the plaintiff is serving as the representative director of the corporation B.

The facts of retirement from office around April 201 are without dispute between the parties.

Ultimately, the instant retirement allowance claim asserted by the Plaintiff constitutes a bankruptcy claim because it constitutes a property claim arising from the cause arising before the above declaration of bankruptcy, and cannot be exercised without resorting to bankruptcy procedures, such as reporting to the bankruptcy court.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that the retirement allowance claim in this case and the defendant's damage claim against the plaintiff against the plaintiff should be offset on an equal amount. However, according to the related litigation (Seoul High Court 2015Na2017553), the plaintiff's claim for offset was rejected, but the judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, it is unreasonable to re-appeal the claim for offset in this case as it goes against the res judicata effect of the offset claim.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the instant lawsuit is unlawful in accordance with the conclusion.