1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2015, with respect to Company B (the representative C; hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), C was deemed a custodian on June 9, 2015 when the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures was rendered by the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap100127, and was rendered on October 22, 2015.

B. On August 2015, which was following the decision to commence rehabilitation against the non-party company, the non-party company entered into a home shopping sales agency contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the purport that if the Plaintiff produces and supplies the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s trademark “D” attached to the Plaintiff’s trademark “D, the Plaintiff sold it in home shopping and received the trademark user fee according to the sales volume from the non-party company.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 9 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Under the Plaintiff’s assertion contract, the non-party company did not fully perform the obligation to manufacture the products attached to the Plaintiff’s trademark and supply them to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.

B. Determination 1) Upon receipt of a decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the authority of the debtor to perform the debtor’s business, manage and dispose of his/her assets is exclusively vested in the administrator (Article 56(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and such act is valid only when the court received the court’s decision on permission regarding the act that stipulated that the act is subject to the court’s supervision (Article 61(1) of the Act). Thus, the debtor’s act, etc. deprived of the right to conduct business or the right to manage and dispose of assets after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures cannot assert its effect within the rehabilitation procedures. 2) The return to the instant case and the kin case, the decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the non-party company was made on June 9, 2