1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against A's administrator A, an agricultural company for rehabilitation, shall be dismissed;

2. Defendant.

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) on April 18, 2014, the Defendant: (b) the rehabilitation company A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Company”); (c) the guaranteed amount: KRW 42,500,000; and (d) the guarantee period: three years from the date of the loan; (b) the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the indemnity obligation owed by the rehabilitation company to the Plaintiff; (c) the rehabilitation company borrowed KRW 50,00,00 from the NH Nonghyup Bank on April 22, 2014 as collateral; (d) the rehabilitation company did not pay the interest and principal of the above loan; (e) the Plaintiff paid the said loan to the above bank KRW 42,64,597 on March 10, 201; or (e) the repayment rate of the principal amount by subrogation of the said payment to the Seoul Central District Court KRW 42,500,000 as of May 9, 2016 to KRW 2016; and (e) the Defendant 201617.201.7.

2. Whether the lawsuit against the defendant administrator is legitimate or not, the plaintiff sought reimbursement against the defendant administrator. We examine ex officio whether the lawsuit against the defendant administrator is legitimate or not.

If there is no objection against the reported rehabilitation claim, it is confirmed as stated in the report (Article 166 subparag. 1). When the entry of the confirmed rehabilitation claim in the table of rehabilitation creditors is recorded, the entry of the entry into the list of rehabilitation creditors becomes the same as the chemical judgment (Article 168). Therefore, the lawsuit regarding the rehabilitation claim that has been pending is illegal as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da17971, Jun. 26, 2014). The lawsuit regarding the rehabilitation claim that the Plaintiff reported as the rehabilitation claim is illegal as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g.