1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for the payment of goods at the Jung-gu District Court 2006da73805 decided in favor of the Defendant, but did not receive payment until now, and accordingly, filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of prescription period.

B. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides, “The claim on the property that occurred before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim,” and the main text of Article 566 of the same Act provides, “The exempted debtor shall be exempted from the responsibility for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends arising from the bankruptcy procedure.” Here, the term “the exempted obligation” means that the debtor continues to perform his/her obligation, but it is impossible to enforce the performance against the bankrupt debtor.

When a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, the claim entitled to immunity shall lose the ordinary ability to file a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments described in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 1 through 3, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as the original unit, and leased KRW 1,700,000 to KRW 33,616,688, supra; the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price of goods with the Government District Court Decision 2006Da73805, Oct. 24, 2007; on the other hand, the delivery to the Defendant by public notice in the above lawsuit was conducted by the Government District Court; on the other hand, the Defendant may file an application for immunity with the Defendant for immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act’s District Court Decision 2010Da317, Oct. 27, 2012.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's claim for payment to the defendant in this case is a claim for property arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, and a decision to grant immunity to the defendant.