beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.22 2013가단246062

구상금 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with C, which operated “B” on March 8, 2002; and (b) issued C’s credit guarantee certificates for loans to us; (c) on March 31, 2011, C paid KRW 48,051,73 to the above bank on March 31, 201 due to C’s failure to repay the above loan; (d) the Plaintiff was ordered for C to pay indemnity amounting to KRW 48,04,537 and delayed payment amounting to KRW 48,039,813 as Seoul Western District Court Decision 201Hu517 and its delayed payment amounting to KRW 48,039,813 among them; and (e) the fact that the payment order became final

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant continues to use B’s business after acquiring the type C’s business from the type C, the Plaintiff is liable for the repayment of C’s above-mentioned liability. 2) Business transfer under the Commercial Act refers to the transfer of an enterprise organized for a certain business purpose, i.e., the human and physical organization, as a whole, to the whole while maintaining its identity. Whether a business transfer has been made or not must be determined by whether the existing business organization is maintained and its organization can function as a whole or an important part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23826, May 30, 2003; 2005Da5812, 5829, 5836, Jun. 1, 2007). For such a purpose, there should be an explicit or implied contract between the parties to the business transfer.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da2644 delivered on June 24, 1997). 3C closed its business on November 1, 201, and the Defendant opened 'D' at the same place of business as the same day. B and D are most the same type of business and run the same 'D' agency business, and the telephone and facsimile number used are the same. The fact that the purchase and sales of B and D overlap considerable parts of transaction parties is not disputed between the parties or recognized by comprehensively taking account of each of the descriptions described in Gap 2-1, 2, Gap 4, 5, and Eul 1.