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

A. From May 2, 2012 to October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied goods, such as foodstuffs, to the wedding hall in the operation of a joint-stock company C (hereinafter “C”) located in the building located in Dong-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “C”), and was not reimbursed KRW 26,487,750 out of the price of the goods.

B. C closed down around September 30, 2014.

C. On September 25, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on the wedding facilities and crowdfunding equipment, etc. of the instant building; from October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2014, the Defendant is engaged in the wedding business in the instant building with the trade name of “D”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant takes over the business of C and continues to conduct the business with the same trade name, and that he/she promised to assume the outstanding amount for the plaintiff as the transferee of the business that belongs to the trade name under Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act, and is obliged to pay 26,487,750 won to the plaintiff, as the transferee of the business that belongs to the trade name under Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act.

B. The mere descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff acquired the business from Eul, or the defendant agreed to pay the price of the goods to Eul, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in addition to the overall purport of pleadings in the statement No. 1 of the evidence No. 1, the Defendant entered into a business lease agreement with C, and the fact that the instant building as a business lessee is running a wedding business is recognized. In the case of a business lease, Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act cannot be deemed to apply mutatis mutandis as it is (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da9212, Aug. 24, 2016). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3...