1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against A and B shall be revoked;

The plaintiff's taking over of the lawsuit by the defendant A.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the lawsuit against Defendant A’s taking-off and Defendant B’s taking-out of the lawsuit is legitimate.

A. According to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”), when any custodian, any rehabilitation creditor, any rehabilitation secured creditor, any shareholder, any equity right holder raises an objection within the inspection period or on the special inspection date in the rehabilitation procedures, the contents of the reported rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights and the amount of voting rights are determined (Article 166 of the Act). When rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights that are confirmed are entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors and rehabilitation secured creditors, the entry therein has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment on all rehabilitation creditors, any rehabilitation secured creditor, any shareholder, any equity right holder (Article 168 of the Act). A rehabilitation creditor or any rehabilitation secured creditor is entitled to compulsory execution on the debtor according to the table of rehabilitation creditors or the table of rehabilitation secured creditors (Articles 292(2), 293, and 255(2) of the Act). Therefore, there is no benefit in filing a lawsuit seeking performance

I would like to say.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the instant case’s health class, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 and 5, following the judgment of the first instance court, Gap was ordered to commence each rehabilitation procedure as of June 18, 2015, Seoul Central District Court 2015dan10126, and Eul was ordered to commence the rehabilitation procedure as of June 9, 2015, and the Seoul Central District Court 2015Kahap100120. In the instant rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff reported the instant loan claim as a rehabilitation claim, and the Defendants, the administrator of A and B, were found to have failed to raise an objection. Accordingly, if the Plaintiff received reimbursement according to the repayment plan authorized in the rehabilitation procedure, or if the rehabilitation procedure for Gap and B were abolished, it is sufficient to perform compulsory execution based on the rehabilitation table, and as above, to the rehabilitation table.