1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and supplies electronic parts, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures chemical reinforcement glass, etc.

B. The Defendant was declared bankrupt on December 4, 2015 in Suwon District Court 2015Hau49, and A was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the said movable property, since the Plaintiff entered into a product supply contract with the Defendant and used the movable property listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff for manufacturing the Defendant’s products, and the supply of the goods was suspended and the return was requested.

3. We examine, ex officio, whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful or not.

In the same month prior to December 17, 2015, which was at the time of filing the instant lawsuit.

4. Article 359 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the trustee in bankruptcy was appointed to the defendant, and Article 359 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the trustee in bankruptcy shall be the party in bankruptcy in a lawsuit concerning the bankrupt estate. The above property belonging to the bankrupt estate includes any property which the trustee in bankruptcy recognizes and occupies as the actual property under the bankruptcy. In this case, the substantive right holder may exercise the right of restitution pursuant to Article 407 of the above Act, and the lawsuit concerning the exercise of the right of restitution, i.e., a claim for delivery based on ownership, etc., shall be included in the lawsuit concerning the bankrupt estate, and the lawsuit in this case shall be filed against the trustee in bankruptcy as a lawsuit concerning the bankrupt estate, and the defendant is not qualified as the party in

4. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.