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

The defendants of the claim are the defendants.

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case is as follows, except for the part as to whether there was a contract for business transfer (the part as to whether there was a contract for business transfer) under Article 2-B(1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is justifiable to find facts and determine in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B) The term “business operation” in Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act refers to a functional asset as an organic integration organized for a certain business purpose. The term “functional asset” in this context means that the factual relations with tangible and intangible property and economic value that constitute the business operation function as the source of revenue and that the functional asset as the source of revenue that systematically combines as such becomes an object of transaction like one goods, such as goods. Thus, whether the business transfer can be deemed to exist should be determined depending on whether the transferee can be deemed to continue the same business operation as the transferor had continued after the transferee transferred the functional asset as the source of revenue formed systematically (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da27377, Jul. 26, 2012). The inquiry results of the inquiry into the first instance corporate bank (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da4000, Apr. 15, 2011; 200Da3777, Jul. 26, 2012).