2. The method of service by public notice as to Defendant B’s judgment is followed. The argument regarding the payment agreement, such as the Plaintiff’s surgery expenses, is recognized as to each of the entries, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and this part of the argument

However, with respect to the claim for damages of mental suffering caused by the Defendant’s medical malpractice, the medical expenses are fully accepted as the fact of the Defendant’s payment agreement as above, and in addition, in consideration of various circumstances, such as the progress of the instant surgery and the agreement on the payment of the expenses for future treatment to be immediately sought by the Plaintiff, KRW 7 million among them shall be recognized.

Therefore, Defendant B is liable to pay to the Plaintiff 18,034,700 won, including the agreed amount of KRW 11,034,700,000, the total of KRW 7,000,000, and damages for delay.

3. The trade name of Defendant B, the transferor of the judgment against Defendant C, and the trade name of Defendant C, the assignee, are similar to the two different parts. However, the purport of Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act is to prevent a third party from being deprived of the opportunity to recover claims against the transferor due to the transfer of the business when the transferee continues to use the transferor’s trade name. The purport of Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act is to prevent a third party from being deprived of the transferor’s opportunity to recover claims due to the transfer of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu10128, Dec. 26, 1989). However, the medical contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant B cannot be readily concluded as a commercial act for profit, which serves as the premise of the principle of external protection, the principle of trust protection, and the swiftness of transactions.