Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods related to solar power generation equivalent to KRW 213,772,00 ( separate value-added tax) to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would divide the supply goods into the Defendant’s leisure workplace by December 2018, to put the said goods into the Defendant’s leisure workplace.

B. Under the instant contract, the Plaintiff secured the entire quantity of the said goods through importation, supplied them in installments at the Defendant’s leisure place of business and received the corresponding amount of goods. From June 2018, the Plaintiff still remains in the storage of the goods amounting to KRW 87,883,400 as follows (hereinafter “instant goods”).

(c)

From June 2018, the Defendant failed to receive the instant goods from around June 2018, and thus, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the receipt of the instant goods on September 7, 2018, but did not pay the price for the goods without receiving it.

(d)

The Defendant filed an application for rehabilitation on June 26, 2019 at 146 meetings of 2019: (a) the rehabilitation court did not appoint a manager on July 17, 2019; (b) the reporting period of rehabilitation claims from August 1, 2019 to August 14, 2019; and (c) the reporting period of rehabilitation claims from August 16, 2019 to August 28, 2019 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”); (e) the Plaintiff failed to report the instant goods-price claim as a rehabilitation claim during the instant rehabilitation procedure; and (c) the rehabilitation court did not enter it in the list of creditors, but decided to terminate the rehabilitation procedure on February 19, 200 and April 8, 2020.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the goods of this case were to be supplied under the contract of this case, but the Defendant refused to accept the goods of this case, thereby resulting in the Defendant’s refusal to do so.