1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim on February 27, 2018, installed the machinery equivalent to KRW 34,650,000 at the Defendant’s request, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of KRW 34,650,00 and delay damages.

2. On October 18, 2018, the Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s main defense is subject to a decision to commence rehabilitation at the Changwon District Court upon filing an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a rehabilitation claim, and thus, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the claim should be exercised in the relevant procedure

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that the litigation procedures will be interrupted, the Defendant’s assertion that the litigation procedures will be interrupted shall be dismissed in cases where the lawsuit is instituted after the commencement decision of rehabilitation, and that the litigation procedures will not be interrupted. Thus, the Defendant’s argument is deemed unlawful as

It is unlawful to institute a lawsuit seeking the fulfillment of a rehabilitation claim against a rehabilitation creditor after the rehabilitation procedures commence, or filing a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of a rehabilitation claim in lieu of going through the procedures provided for in the provisions of Articles 170 and 171 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act by a rehabilitation creditor who has not pending any lawsuit on the rehabilitation claim at the time rehabilitation

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da10310, May 26, 2011). According to the record of evidence No. 1, 2011, the Changwon District Court recognized that the order to commence rehabilitation was rendered against the Defendant on October 18, 2018, and the instant lawsuit is apparent in the record that it was filed on November 6, 2018, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

The plaintiff alleged that the claim of this case is about a priority claim, since the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in fraud. However, since the damage claim based on a tort does not constitute a priority claim under Article 179 of the above Act, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed.