1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination on the legitimacy of an objection against the decision on performance recommendation

(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court in the records:

1) On July 23, 2017, the Defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with Seoul Rehabilitation Court Order 2017Hadan1019, 2017, 1019, and 2017, and the Seoul Rehabilitation Court appointed C as a bankruptcy trustee when it rendered a ruling of bankruptcy against the Defendant on June 12, 2017. (2) The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a ruling of performance recommendation against the Defendant on September 8, 2017, and received a decision of performance recommendation against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant decision of performance recommendation”), and the instant decision of performance recommendation was served on the attorney in bankruptcy on September 25, 2017.

(C) On October 11, 2017, the Seoul Rehabilitation Court rendered a final and conclusive decision on performance recommendation by deeming that the Defendant did not raise an objection within two weeks even though the instant decision on performance recommendation was served on the Defendant. (4) On April 24, 2018, the Defendant received a decision to abolish bankruptcy from the Seoul Rehabilitation Court.

5) On May 4, 2018, the Defendant perused the instant records and raised an objection against the instant decision on performance recommendation on May 10, 2018. (B) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not raise an objection within two weeks thereafter despite having served the Defendant’s instant decision on performance recommendation with the trustee in bankruptcy. As such, the instant decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive, and the Defendant’s objection against the instant decision on performance recommendation made on May 10, 2018, is unlawful. (C) The instant objection against the instant decision on performance recommendation made by the Defendant on May 10, 2018.

As seen in the foregoing paragraph, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against “Defendant” who was not a trustee in bankruptcy on September 8, 2017, after a decision of declaration of bankruptcy was already rendered against the Defendant, and received the instant decision of performance recommendation. As such, the Plaintiff served the instant decision of performance recommendation to “trustee in bankruptcy” who is not the Defendant, it is unlawful to serve the instant decision

In such a situation.