beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 31, 2015 and December 7, 2012 of the same year, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) supplied 470,000 in total, each of 235,00 of the labels for the attachment of television protection films (hereinafter “instant labels”).
B. A supplied the instant labels to the Defendant’s television protection films, attached them to Nonparty 1’s scare Electronic and D (hereinafter “Scare Electronic, etc.”), and supplied them to Nonparty 1 scare Electronic, etc. (hereinafter “ELS”) again.
C. The mark of this case is divided into the point where the starting agents are located at the length of 60 meters (±1m) and 20m (0.5m in width). The part where the starting agents are located and the non-pointing section without any pointing agents. The defect where part of the starting agents are transferred (hereinafter “the defect of this case”) was generated in the section of less than 0.5m corresponding to the end of the nonpointing section. The defect of this case took place (the same shall apply to the photograph below; hereinafter) and the remaining wres from the television products using the protective film with the mark of this case.
On January 3, 2016, A notified of the instant defect from ELDlas, and conducted an investigation into whether the instant defect occurred in the remaining inventory by inserting human resources from January 4, 2016 to January 11, 2016, work to easily open the end of the instant labels, work to replace the donated labels and the protected films with new ones, and the work to clean the television contaminated by son.
A spent 38,737,600 won in total as personnel expenses to carry out the above work.
E. On July 18, 2017, while the instant lawsuit was pending in the first instance court, the Seoul Rehabilitation Court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation as of July 18, 2017, and the said court did not separately appoint a manager of A, and rendered a decision to regard the Plaintiff, the representative director of A, as the custodian. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is the instant case.