물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant takes over the business of Chinese restaurant from D, the debtor of the price of the goods, and uses "F" the same as "E", which is the same as D's trade name. Thus, pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the debt of 3,750,000 won for the price of the goods and delay damages
2. The liability of a mutual partner under Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, based on the premise that there is a transfer of business, occurs when the transferee of the business continues to use the transferor’s trade name. Thus, first of all, the determination as to whether a transfer of business had been made between D
Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act refers to a functional asset as an organic integration organized for a certain business purpose. A functional asset as an organic integration refers to a functional asset that functions as a source of profit by systematically combining tangible or intangible property and a factual relation with economic value that serves as a source of profit, and the functional asset as a source of profit that is systematically combined as such becomes an object of transaction like one goods. Thus, in order to deem that a transfer of business is a transfer of business, the issue should be determined depending on whether the transferee can be deemed to continue the business activity, such as the transferor, where the transferor continues to perform the business activity after the transferee transferred the functional asset as the source of profit systematically organized.
(A) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Defendant leased one story of the H ground building (hereinafter “instant building”) on December 31, 2014 in the building of this case, which was operated by D from G on December 16, 2014, and started a restaurant business in the name of “F” on December 31, 2014, even though it is recognized that the Defendant started a restaurant business in the name of “F” from the building of this case, the foregoing facts of recognition and the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3 alone are sufficiently organized by the Defendant from D.