民事诉讼 KRW 180 Million Goods Payment Claim Fully Dismissed in Purchased Bankruptcy Claim Dispute

#TaelimLawFirm #DebtCollectionAttorney #CorporateBankruptcyAttorney #GoodsPaymentLitigation #GangnamCivilLitigationAttorney #CivilLitigationAttorney

The client was sued by a plaintiff who had purchased a claim from a bankrupt company, seeking payment of approximately KRW 180 million for goods. The plaintiff claimed that it had acquired the claim from the bankruptcy trustee, asserting that the company had previously supplied masks to the client but had not received payment.

Because the plaintiff relied on ledgers, tax invoices, delivery receipts, and messages, the case could appear unfavorable to the client on its face.

Taelim Law Firm’s debt collection attorney viewed the core issue not simply as whether the claim had been assigned, but whether the underlying goods payment claim subject to assignment had actually existed in the first place.

Taelim comprehensively analyzed the notarial deed prepared at the time, the history of seizure and collection order proceedings, text messages, the contents of a no-referral decision in a related criminal case, and third-party statements. In particular, Taelim strongly pointed out that if there had actually been an unpaid goods payment claim, it would be inconsistent with the circumstances in which the client had lent money to the opposing company and prepared a notarial deed.

Taelim also thoroughly rebutted the argument that the tax invoices and ledger entries submitted by the plaintiff alone proved actual delivery, and argued that the delivery receipts could not be regarded as materials directly related to the client.

Furthermore, Taelim presented an alternative defense that, even if the claim existed, the goods payment claim was subject to a three-year short-term statute of limitations, which had already expired.

The court accepted Taelim’s arguments. The court found that the materials submitted by the plaintiff were insufficient to recognize the actual supply of goods and the existence of the goods payment claim. It also found that, even assuming the claim existed, the statute of limitations had already expired.

Ultimately, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and the plaintiff was also ordered to bear the litigation costs.

Even where a claim is purchased in bankruptcy proceedings, the existence and scope of the claim are not automatically recognized. A claim in ledgers, tax invoices, or a demand letter alone cannot conclusively establish that an actual transaction occurred.

This case is an example of Taelim accurately identifying the inconsistency in the transaction structure hidden behind formal materials. Taelim directly disputed the substance of the claim while also asserting the statute of limitations defense, protecting the client from bearing a large claim.

This was a case in which Taelim’s meticulous evidence analysis and multidimensional legal response led to a complete victory in a complex bankruptcy claim and commercial transaction dispute.

**

If you are facing difficulties similar to the case above, please feel free to contact Taelim Law Firm at any time.