beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 59,026,00 to the Defendant from July 2013 to September 30, 2013, and sought payment for the price of the goods and damages for delay against the Defendant.
According to Article 168 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, when any rehabilitation claim confirmed is entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors, the entry of such rehabilitation claim in the table of rehabilitation creditors, etc. has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and according to Article 251 of the same Act, if it is decided to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan, the debtor is exempted from liability except for the rights recognized under the rehabilitation plan. According to Article 255 (1) of the same Act, when a decision to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan is confirmed, entry in the table of rehabilitation creditors on the rights approved pursuant to the rehabilitation plan has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment. According to Article 255
In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 4 of this case, the defendant was ordered to commence rehabilitation procedures on February 19, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court 2014 Ma10, the defendant decided to dismiss the lawsuit of this case on the grounds that the defendant's claim for the price of the goods was entered in the list of rehabilitation creditors without objection to the plaintiff's claim during the period of claim investigation under the above rehabilitation procedures; the rehabilitation plan, including the repayment of the plaintiff's claim for the price of the goods, was authorized on July 23, 2014; and the defendant received a decision to complete rehabilitation procedures on July 14, 2015 on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove that there is no obstacle to the execution of the rehabilitation plan. In full view of the above recognized facts and the above-mentioned provisions, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, and thus, it is