beta
Text
Bankruptcy claims against the plaintiff's bankruptcy debtor C are 98,360,655 won.
The plaintiff's defendant B.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a merchant engaged in the business of manufacturing industrial appliances, etc. under the trade name of “E”, and C is a company with the purpose of manufacturing LED lighting equipment, etc., and Defendant B is the representative director of C.
B. From May 2014 to June 2015, the Plaintiff received the supply of F, 2, G, and H products, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”) from C several times, including LED factories.
(c)
C at the time of supplying the instant goods to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff provided product introduction and publicity books on LED (SPS, hereinafter “instant consortium”) among the parts used for the instant goods. The phrase “PS characteristics” is written as follows: “No 50,00 hours security (5 years opening), 50,00 hours security (5 years), 67 or more, rated current method, excessive voltage/electric current/electric current/electric shock protection circuits.”
(d)
The Plaintiff manufactured and sold the factory, etc. using the instant goods, and received from customers several times from around 2016 due to defective conditions, such as the occupation of the factory, etc., and accordingly, returned and processed (A/S) at the Plaintiff’s expense.
E. On April 29, 2020, this Part C was declared bankrupt on April 29, 2020, 2020 lower and 149, and D was appointed as bankruptcy administrator and took over the instant legal proceedings (hereinafter “Defendant bankruptcy administrator”). The fact that there is no dispute as to the ground for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 16, 17 (including where there are spot numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.
2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant bankruptcy administrator
A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff received the goods of this case from C to manufacture the factory, etc. and sold them to its customers, etc. The plaintiff continued return and ex post facto settlement (A/S) due to the existence of defects in the communications of this case.