The appeal is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the supplementary intervenor is the supplementary intervenor of the plaintiff's successor to the lawsuit.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Filing a lawsuit against a deceased person under the basic principles of the Civil Procedure Act demanding the rescue of the plaintiff and the defendant as the defendant is unlawful as it does not constitute a substantial litigation relationship.

The same shall apply where the defendant is alive at the time of filing a lawsuit but dies before a duplicate of the complaint is served.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da34041 Decided January 29, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Da274188 Decided May 17, 2017). A lawsuit brought by a deceased person by expressing it to the Plaintiff is not lawful, except in extenuating circumstances.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da210449, Apr. 29, 2016). Even if a creditor files a lawsuit against a debtor prior to the declaration of bankruptcy or a debtor files a lawsuit claiming the performance against a debtor to confirm the absence of an obligation against a creditor, if the bankruptcy was declared against the creditor or debtor prior to the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint, such legal doctrine likewise applies.

Since the debtor is not a party to a lawsuit against the bankrupt foundation, the lawsuit filed by the debtor as the plaintiff shall be dismissed as illegal (Article 359 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). In this case, the trustee's request for resumption of the lawsuit filed by the trustee in bankruptcy on the premise that the lawsuit is pending in the court at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

Plaintiff

On March 25, 2015, the Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) transferred the loan claims against the Plaintiff to the Defendant on March 25, 2015, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the claim.

B. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of the absence of an obligation under the said assignment contract, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on January 2, 2017.

On the other hand, December 14, 2016.