1. The part against Defendant B among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A is 86,598,470 won and its importance.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is claiming the acquisition amount and the compensation for delay on the ground that he/she acquired the claim against the defendant of Daejeon NFFC.

In this regard, since the above defendant is in repayment in accordance with the authorization order of the rehabilitation plan, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful and it is the defense of safety.

On September 30, 2008, the above defendant filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedure with the Incheon District Court 2008dan4 on September 30, 2008 and received the order of commencement on October 27, 2008. The claim of Daejeon Agricultural Cooperatives, which the plaintiff claimed to have taken over in the creditor list prepared in the above rehabilitation procedure, was stated, and the decision of authorization of the rehabilitation plan was confirmed at that time as of May 8, 2009 against the above defendant, and the fact that the decision of completion of rehabilitation procedure was made on January 20, 2012 can be recognized by this court or by taking full account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

Any entry of the rights recognized according to the rehabilitation plan on the basis of the rehabilitation claim in the table of rehabilitation creditors shall have the same effect as a final judgment on the debtor and rehabilitation creditors at the time a decision on the authorization of the rehabilitation plan becomes final and conclusive (Article 255(1) and (2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and when a decision on the authorization of the rehabilitation plan is made, the debtor's liability shall be mitigated and the right to file a lawsuit, except for the rights recognized by

Ultimately, the claim by a rehabilitation creditor by lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.

If so, the above defendant's main defense is reasonable, and the part against the above defendant among the lawsuit of this case must be dismissed.

2. Determination as to the remaining defendants' lawsuits

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Decisions on the provision of Article 208 (3) 2 (i.e., judgment on deemed confessions, Defendant C), and service by publication under subparagraphs 3 and Defendant A of the Civil Procedure