1. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. In order to preserve the claim for the price of goods for which payment order was finalized on January 18, 2016 by the Daegu District Court 2016 tea61, the Plaintiff asserted that the property division agreement entered into between C and the Defendant on April 7, 2014 with respect to the building indicated in the separate sheet constituted a fraudulent act under the status of excess of debt, and sought cancellation of the property division agreement between C and C, and seek cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership that was completed in the future of the Defendant on April 8, 2014.

B. However, after a decision to commence an individual rehabilitation procedure has been rendered, the debtor shall exercise the avoidance power aiming at the equal repayment to all creditors, and the individual rehabilitation creditors who are unable to receive repayment or require repayment of individual rehabilitation claims entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors cannot file a lawsuit seeking revocation of creditor's claim aiming at preserving the property liable for each individual claim on the premise of individual compulsory execution.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37141 Decided September 9, 2010). C.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claim also was recorded in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors after filing an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures with the Changwon District Court 2016Da2022, Jan. 20, 2016. Since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for revocation of the instant fraudulent act on September 2, 2016 is clearly recorded in the records or can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in Gap, since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for revocation of the instant fraudulent act on September 2, 2016, after the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures with respect to the instant case was issued, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff, who is an individual rehabilitation creditor, is unlawful

2. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed.