1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Intervenor B bears monetary obligations based on the judgment of Suwon District Court Decision 2009Kadan22578 Decided May 25, 2010 to the Plaintiff.

On the basis of this, the Plaintiff is the collection obligee B, who received a collection order, where the Defendant’s Intervenor B transferred the provisional seizure of the claim against the Defendant, and the provisional seizure of the claim against the Defendant, 2009Kadan3750, and the provisional seizure of 2013TT 5625, to the seizure

B. The Intervenor B’s Intervenor was decided to authorize the repayment plan on April 27, 2017 in Suwon District Court 2014, 1002291 in the case of personal rehabilitation, and the obligee’s list of creditors of the repayment plan indicated the Plaintiff’s claim based on the Suwon District Court 2009No22578 decision.

C. The above repayment plan was publicly announced on May 11, 2017 and finalized around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 12 and 13 (including additional number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case was lawful and that the lawsuit of this case was lost the interest of the lawsuit due to the decision to authorize the above repayment plan. Thus, we examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case.

According to Article 600(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, when a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures is made, the procedure of compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition based on individual rehabilitation claims shall be suspended, and pursuant to Article 615(3) of the same Act, when a decision to authorize the repayment plan is made, the compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition suspended

According to the facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Intervenor B constitutes individual rehabilitation claims based on the property claim arising from the cause that occurred before the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, and as long as a decision to authorize the repayment plan against the Defendant Intervenor B becomes final and conclusive with respect to the Defendant Intervenor B, the Suwon District Court, whose claim is the claim claim, may be deemed as the claim claim, provisional seizure against the said claim, and the court’s 2013T