Attorney Kim Tae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The plaintiff is a company that sells household goods with location in Busan Gangseo-gu, and the defendant is the defendant.

D, in the name of "Ymaart" at the Changwon-si on January 2007, from D, who operated Scama, with the trade name of "Ymaart"

After the transfer, it is the person who operates Smarkets in the same trade name.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 1,050,50,504 from D from around August 2005 to August 2006 as consumer goods.

The state of failure is the situation.

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff's obligation to pay for the goods to the plaintiff by the defendant's taking over the market business from D.

1,050, 504 won was acquired, and even if not, the former trade name is used.

Since the business takeover is a business takeover, the Plaintiff is responsible for reimbursing the price of the goods equivalent to the above KRW 1,050,504.

I asserts.

The fact that the defendant received Schlage business from D which D had been operated in Changwon-si, and the defendant received by the defendant

D continued to use externally the trade name "Ymaart" used by D and doing business.

In fact, there is no dispute between the parties, and in light of these circumstances, the transferee of the business.

The defendant constitutes a case where the defendant continues to use D's trade name in appearance, which is the transferor, at least

42. Responsibility to repay D’s debt to the Plaintiff, a transferor, arising from business operations under Article 42.

(A) The defendant and D at the time of the transfer of the business, according to the evidence submitted by the defendant.

It may be recognized that D is responsible for the obligations related to the business, but such circumstances may be

may be asserted only if such notice is given to the third party without delay after the transfer of the business.

Accordingly, there is no evidence from the defendant or D to know that the defendant or D has given such notice.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.)

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

shall be determined.